Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
7 - Parameter Setting
from Part I - Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 134 - 162Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Baker, C. L. 1979. ‘Syntactic theory and the projection problem’, Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 533–81.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 351–74.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2011. ‘In defence of lexico-centric parametric variation: Two 3rd factor-constrained case studies’, paper presented at the Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation: Rethinking Parameters, Madrid.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘A syntactic universal and its consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.) 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Richards, M. 2006. ‘True optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind’, in Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist essays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP-parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally driven change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Eythórsson, Th. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Crisma, and Longobardi, (eds.), pp. 58–74.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, in Chancharu, J., Hu, X. and Mitrović, M. (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 209–36.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘Conditional inversion and types of parametric change’, paper presented at the 40th Incontro di grammatica generativa, Trento.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2010. ‘Impossible changes and impossible borrowings: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Breitbarth, A., Lucas, C., Watts, S. and Willis, D. (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2011. ‘Negative concord in Afrikaans: Filling a typological gap’, Journal of Semantics 29(3): 345–71.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2012. ‘Negative changes: Three factors and the diachrony of Afrikaans negation’, in Galves, , Cyrino, , Sândalo, , Lopes, and Avelar, (eds.), pp. 237–63.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, P. 2012. ‘Macroparameter learnability: An Algonquian case study’, unpublished MS, Memorial University, Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early years. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. 1970. ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 11–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework’, in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. ‘Approaching UG from below’, in Gärtner, H.-M. and Sauerland, U. (eds.), Interface + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Clark, A. and Lappin, S. 2011. Linguistic nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. 1992. ‘The selection of syntactic knowledge’, Language Acquisition 2(2): 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar
Corblin, F., Déprez, V., de Swart, H. and Tovena, L. 2004. ‘Negative concord’, in Corblin, F. and de Swart, H. (eds.), Handbok of French semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 417–52.Google Scholar
Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds) 2009. Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, A. 2007. ‘Word order, parameters and the extended COMP projection’, in Bayer, J., Bhattacharya, T. and Hany Babu, M. Veettil Tharayil (eds.), Linguistic theory and South Asian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–98.Google Scholar
Dell, F. 1981. ‘On the learnability of optional phonological rules’, Linguistic Inquiry 12(1): 31–7.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English language, vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Deterding, D., Ling Low, E. and Brown, A. 2003. English in Singapore: Research on grammar. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, E. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, E. 2013. ‘The arch not the stones: Universal Feature Theory without universal features’, paper presented at the Conference on Features in Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Semantics: What Are They?, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. and Kaye, J. 1990. ‘A computational learning model for Metrical Phonology’, Cognition 34(1): 137–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryer, M. 1992. ‘The Greenbergian word order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguine, M. and Irurtzun, A. 2014. ‘From obligatory wh-movement to optional wh-in-situ in Labourdin Basque’, Language 90(1): e1–e30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A. and van Kampen, J. 2008. ‘Parameter setting and input reduction’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 483–515.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. 2002. ‘The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000)’, Cognition 82: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D. and Sakas, W. 2004. ‘Evaluating models of parameter setting’, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 28). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Fontana, J. 1993. ‘Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Frank, R. and Kapur, S. 1996. ‘On the use of triggers in parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 623–60.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. 1986. ‘A theory of category projection and its applications’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. and Trips, C. 2002. ‘Variation and change in Old and Middle English – on the validity of the double base hypothesis’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Sândalo, F., Lopes, R. and Avelar, J. (eds.) 2012. Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. and Boroditsky, L. 2001. ‘Individuation, relational relativity and early word learning’, in Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–56.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2000. ‘Negative … Concord?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, E. M. 1967. ‘Language identication in the limit’, Information and Control 10: 447–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Butcher, C., Mylander, C. and Dodge, M. 1994. ‘Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: what’s in a name?’, Cognitive Psychology 27: 259–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 1998. ‘Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition’, Linguistic Inquiry 29(4): 656–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 2003. ‘The subset principle in phonology: Why the tabula can’t be rasa’, Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. ‘How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2/3): 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2005. ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null subject parameters’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 88–112.Google Scholar
Ingham, R. and Larrivée, P. 2011. The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 1998. ‘The historical creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2009. ‘Linguistic theory and the historical creation of English reflexives’, in Crisma, and Longobardi, (eds.), pp. 17–40.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, K., Denton, J., Knippen, B., Meinar, L., Suzuki, H. and Zeinfeld, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirtieth annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 629–739.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. ‘Verb–object order in early Middle English’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 132–63.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, M. and Sag, I. 1974. ‘Prosodic form and discourse function’, Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 416–27.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. 2003. ‘Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar’, Cognition 87(3): 151–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J. and Gleitman, L. 2004. ‘Argument structure and the child’s contribution to language learning’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(4): 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. and Westergaard, M. 2007. ‘Language acquisition and language change: Interrelationships’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5): 396–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacSwan, J. 2000. ‘The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(1): 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. 1993. ‘Negative evidence in language acquisition’, Cognition 46: 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moerenhout, M. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Object–verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: An exploratory study’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E., Gleitman, L. and Gleitman, H. 1977. ‘Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style’, in Snow, C. and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquistion. Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–49.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. 1995. ‘The logical problem of language change’, A.I. Memo no. 1516, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1991. ‘Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Taylor, A. 2006. ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 249–78.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 1995. ‘The diachronic development of subject clitics in North-Eastern Italian dialects’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. 2008. ‘Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system’, in Heck, F., Müller, G. and Trommer, J. (eds.), Varieties of competition: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Leipzig University, pp. 133–62.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986. ‘Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. ‘A deletion analysis of null subjects’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 58–87.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, , Cyrino, , Sândalo, , Lopes, and Avelar, (eds.), pp. 320–35.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 1996. ‘Word order variation in the VP in Old Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 55–86.Google Scholar
Sakas, W. and Fodor, J. D. 2012. ‘Disambiguating syntactic triggers’, Language Acquisition 19: 83–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santorini, B. 1989. ‘The generalization of the verb-second constraint in the history of Yiddish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Santorini, B. 1992. ‘Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 595–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, A. 2008. ‘On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English, with a few remarks on German’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. 1990. ‘Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. and Pintzuk, S. 2012. ‘Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status’, in Traugott, E. C. and Nevalainen, T. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford University Press, pp. 835–45.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2003. ‘Syntactic variation, historical development, and minimalism’, in Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 152–91.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. ‘Parameters and effects of word order variation’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2009. ‘Antisymmetry and the conservation of c-command: scrambling and phrase structure in synchronic and diachronic perspective’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. and Culicover, P. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2013. ‘Tipping Points’, talk given at the 36 Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW36) Conference, Lund.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2004. ‘Sentential negation and negative concord’, unpublished PhD thesis, Amsterdam University.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2008. ‘On the syntactic flexibility of formal features’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 143–73.Google Scholar
- 24
- Cited by