Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T15:53:00.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kyriolexia and Language Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

F. W. Householder
F. W. Householder*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question examined here is how a linguistic change takes place in the behavior of the individual speaker. Examples are chosen primarily from lexical change, though phonological and semantic changes are also mentioned. The opinion is expressed that every speaker has a (usually unconscious) norm against which variants operate, change taking place in two steps: (1) when one variant is promoted to tolerated deviation, (2) when a tolerated deviation replaces the earlier norm (called here KYRIOLEXIA in the case of lexical change). The topic of gradual change is also touched upon.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adler, Max K. 1978. Naming and addressing. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1948. Balm, calm, palm. American Speech 23.155–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1971. Linguistic speculations. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1972a. The principal step in linguistic change. Language Sciences 20.1–5.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1972b. Variation in early Greek. Preface to Greek: A survey of recent work, by Householder, F. W. & Nagy, G., 5–11. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1982. Analysis, synthesis and improvisation. To appear in Nobel Symposium on Text Processing, ed. by Allén, Sture.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1979a. Capacity and norm. (Papers from the Institute of Linguistics, 37.) Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1979b. Mechanisms of language change in Latin. (Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, 23.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Lg. 57.267–308.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1979. Generative grammar and linguistic competence. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Mitford, Nancy. 1956a. The English aristocracy. In Mitford 1956b:21—52.Google Scholar
Mitford, Nancy. 1956b (ed.) Noblesse oblige. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Partridge, Eric. 1970. Dictionary of slang and unconventional English. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Ross, Alan S. C. 1954. U and non-U. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 55.20–56. [Reprinted in Mitford 1956b:55–89.]Google Scholar
Steadman, J. M. Jr. 1938. Affected and effeminate words. American Speech 13.13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strix. 1956. Posh lingo. In Mitford 1956b:123–35.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Lg. 45.9–25.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y., and Cheng, Chin-Chuan. 1971. Tone change in Chao-Zhou Chinese: A study in lexical diffusion. (POLA reports, 2nd series, 12.) Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar