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
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- 13 Universal Grammar
- 14 Abduction
- 15 Transparency
- 16 Uniformitarianism
- 17 Markedness, Naturalness and Complexity
- 18 Acquisition and Learnability
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
14 - Abduction
from Part III - Principles and Constraints
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
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- 13 Universal Grammar
- 14 Abduction
- 15 Transparency
- 16 Uniformitarianism
- 17 Markedness, Naturalness and Complexity
- 18 Acquisition and Learnability
- 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. 301 - 321Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Andersen, H. 1987. ‘From auxiliary to desinence’, in Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 1989. ‘Understanding linguistic innovations’, in Breivik, L. E. an Jahr, E. H. (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 1990. ‘The structure of drift’, in Andersen, H. and Konrad, K. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th international Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 2001a. ‘Markedness and the theory of linguistic change’, in Andersen, (ed.), pp. 19–57.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. 2001b. ‘Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change’, in Andersen, (ed.), pp. 225–48.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (ed.) 2001c. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 2006. ‘Synchrony, diachrony, and evolution’, in Thomsen, (ed.), pp. 59–90.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. 2008. ‘Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change’, in Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory. The Rosendal Papers (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. [1972] 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Burch, R. 2014. ‘Charles Sanders Peirce’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2014 edition), available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/. Accessed 30 May 2015.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. 1957. ‘Sincronía, diacronía e historia: El problema del cambio lingüístico’, Revista de la Faculdad de Humanidades y Ciencias 15: 201–355. Also as Sincronía, diacronía e historia: El problema del cambio lingüístico. Montevideo: Universidad de la Republica, Faculdad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Investigaciones y estudios, 1958, 3rd edition. Madrid: Gredos, 1978.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. [1968] 1970. ‘Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie’, in Petersen, U., Bertsch, H. and Köhler, G. (eds.), Sprache: Strukturen und Funktionen. 12 Aufsätze zur allgemeinen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 91–108. (Translated from ‘Sincronía, diacronía y tipología’, Actas del 11 Congreso Internacional de Lingüística i Filología Romanicas, 1: 269–83. Madrid 1968.)Google Scholar
Deutscher, G. 2002. ‘On the misuse of the notion of “abduction” in linguistics’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 469–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feibleman, J. K. 1970. An introduction to the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, R. and Joseph, B. 2003. ‘On language, change, and language change – or, Of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 3–180.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketner, K. L. and Putnam, H. (eds.) 1992. Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conference lectures of 1898 of Charles Peirce. Introduction by Ketner, K. L. and Putnam, H.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1931–66. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, ed. Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P and Burks, A. W., vols. 1–8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rittel, T. 1975. Szyk członów w obrębie form czasu przeszłego i trybu przypuszczającego. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1949. Aristotle. Prior and posterior analytics: A revised text with introduction and commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. [1921] 1949. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1985. ‘The child as linguistic icon maker’, in Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–6, 1983 (Typological studies in language, 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–48.Google Scholar
Smith, R. 1989. Aristotle. Prior analytics, trans., with introduction, notes and commentary. Indianapolis: Hacket.Google Scholar
Soukharov, A. H. et al. (eds.) 1992. The American heritage dictionary of the English language, 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Tarde, G. 1903. Laws of imitation. New York: Holt. English translation of de Tarde, Gabriel, Les lois de l’imitation: Étude sociologique. Paris: F. Alcan, 1873.Google Scholar
Thomsen, O. N. 2006a. ‘Towards an integrated functional-pragmatic theory of language and language change. In commemoration of Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002)’, in Thomsen, (ed.), pp. 307–38.Google Scholar
Thomsen, O. N. (ed.). 2006b. Competing models of linguistic change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, C N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 141–77.Google Scholar
Topolińska, Z. 1961. Z historii akcentu polskiego od wieku XVI do dziś. (Prace językoznawcze, 27). Warsaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A. 1964. Manuel du vieux slave, vol. 1: Grammaire. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. 1837. History of the inductive sciences, 3rd edition. London: J. W. Parker.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by