Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:13:01.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Special issue on cognitive approaches to the history of English: introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

ALEXANDER BERGS  and
THOMAS HOFFMANN
ALEXANDER BERGS
Affiliation:
Institute of English and American Studies, Fachbereich 7 – Universität Osnabrück, Neuer Graben 40, D-49069 Osnabrück, Germanyabergs@uos.de
THOMAS HOFFMANN
Affiliation:
Department of English and American Studies, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Universitätsallee 1, D-85072 Eichstätt, Germanythomas.hoffmann@ku.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What do we know about the past? For at least some languages, we have textual (or archaeological) evidence from various periods – beyond that, there is only reconstruction. But even when we have some textual evidence, what does it tell us? The answer to this question crucially depends on the way we approach the question: we can treat texts as decontextualized, linguistic evidence, as Neogrammarian or Structuralist studies have done (see McMahon 1994: 17–32). Such an approach already allows us to discover important generalizations about the linguistic state of affairs of a particular language or historical period. Using decontextualized historical evidence, for example, we can already ascertain with a high degree of certainty that in Old English voiced and voiceless fricatives were allophones, rather than phonemes, that there was no do-periphrasis in Middle English, and that in Early Modern English there was some variability between third-person singular present tense {-s} and {-th} – just as we know that present-day Japanese and Korean use postpositions, rather than prepositions.

Type
Introduction
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 193 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

References

Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), Blackwell handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–99. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2012. Grammaticalization. In Bergs, Alexander & Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2, 1558–77. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate & Bergs, Alexander. 2016. Understanding language change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 2, 145–67. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clanchy, Michael. 1993. From memory to written record: England 1066–1307, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2006. The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics. In Thomsen, Ole Nedergård (ed.), Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond, 91–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa & Divjak, Dagmar (eds.). 2015. Cognitive linguistics: An international handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 1985. Metaphor as a basic means for extending the lexicon. In Paprotté, Wolf & Driven, René (eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor in language and thought, 85–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, Malgorzata. 2001. The concept of ‘joy’ in Old and Middle English: A semantic analysis. Piƚa: Wyzsza Szkola Biznesu.Google Scholar
Field, John. 2004. Psycholinguistics: The key concepts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). 2010. Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5), 219–24.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. 1987. The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1997. Inherent variability and linguistic theory. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (1), 73–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2007. English dialect syntax in Word Grammar. English Language and Linguistics 11 (2), 383–405.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45, 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2000. Sociohistorical linguistics and the observer's paradox. In Kastovsky, Dieter & Mettinger, Arthur (eds.), The history of English in a social context, 441–61. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 2010. Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In Winters, Margaret E., Tissari, Heli & Kathryn, Allan (eds.). Historical cognitive linguistics, 3–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar