Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Journals
  4. Content listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2102637 results in Journals

Page 300 of 105132

  • Resolving the Neogrammarian Controversy

  • William Labov
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 57 / Issue 2 / June 1981
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. 267-308

  • Recent investigations of the history of Chinese have given new support to the view that sound change diffuses gradually across the lexicon. Yet instrumental studies of sound change in progress support the Neogrammarian position that change affects all words that include the sound according to their phonetic environment. The paradox can be resolved by distinguishing abstract phonological change from change in low-level output rules. Both types of rules can be observed in recent studies of sound change in progress in Philadelphia: the lexical split of short a shows lexical diffusion in progress, while raising, lowering, fronting, and backing rules show Neogrammarian regularity. A review of the literature on completed changes and other changes in progress tends to support the relevance of a hierarchy of abstractness in determining the nature of the transition from one stage to the other.

  • Obligatory Too in English

  • Jeff Kaplan
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 60 / Issue 3 / September 1984
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. 510-518

  • The obligatoriness of English bisentential too varies with the prominence of the focus on contrasting constituents. This fact leads to a possible explanation for its obligatoriness: too is obligatory where an overt element is needed to emphasize what is important about the content of a two-clause text—i.e., when what is important is that the same thing is predicated about two contrasting items. Too is just the element to do this, because of what it conventionally implicates (that what is predicated by the speaker about the contrasting item in one clause is also predicated about the contrasting item in the other) and because of its hypothesized discourse function (to emphasize the similarity between contrasting constituents).

  • LAN volume 65 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 65 / Issue 1 / March 1989
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. b1-b13
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Page 300 of 105132