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
5 - Analogy and Extension
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. 92 - 112Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H. and Aycock, J. 2007. ‘Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities’, Mental Lexicon 2: 419–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. 2009. ‘Introduction: Analogy in grammar’, Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouda, K. 1939. ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Udischen auf Grund neuer Texte’, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 93(1): 60–72.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 1999. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cassidy, F. G. and Ringler, R. N. (eds.) 1971. Bright’s Old English grammar and reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Charachidzé, G. 1981. Grammaire de la langue Avar (langue du Caucase Nord-Est). Saint-Sulpice de Favières: Jean-Favard.Google Scholar
Čikobava, A. and Cercvaʒe, I. 1962. Xunzuri ena [The Avar language]. Tbilisi: Universit’et’i.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, D. 2012. ‘The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian’, Folia Linguistica 46: 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliardi, A., Goncalves, M., Polinsky, M. and Radkevich, N. 2014. ‘The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez’, Lingua 150: 137–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A. 2008. ‘Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness’, in Good, J. (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 125–43.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case (Syntax and Semantics 18). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2000a. ‘Word order harmonies and word order change in Georgian’, in Sornicola, R., Poppe, E. and Sisha-Halevy, A. (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word order patterns over time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–63.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2000b. ‘Where in the word is the Udi clitic?’, Language 76: 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2013. ‘Origins of metathesis in Batsbi’, in Lohndahl, T. (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–37.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2014. ‘On the origins of biabsolutive constructions in Avar, Batsbi, and Nakh-Daghestanian languages’, presentation at the workshop ‘Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking’, University of Konstanz, April.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D. R. and Sander, E. 2013. Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D. and Pappas, P. 2002. ‘On some recent views concerning the development of the Greek future system’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26: 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadagiʒe, D. and Kadagiʒe, N. 1984. C’ova-tušur-kartul-rusuli leksik’oni [Tsova-Tush-Georgian-Russian dictionary]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1973. ‘“Elsewhere” in phonology’, in Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. [1978] 1982. ‘Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory’, reprinted in Explanation in phonology, ed. Kiparsky, P.. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 217–36.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language variation and change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. 2003. ‘Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change’, in Rojdenburg, G and Mondorf, B. (ed.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, M. 1993. ‘The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax’, Diachronica 10: 51–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, M. and Wang, W. S.-Y. 1996. ‘Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: The development of –s in the third person singular present indicative in English’, in Britton, D. (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics at Edinburgh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 119–41.Google Scholar
Paul, H. [1880] 1968. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 7th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1973. ‘Word-final devoicing in the development of Yiddish’, in Kachru, B., Lees, R. B. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 790–7.Google Scholar
Schiefner, A. 1863. Versuch über die Sprache der Uden. Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 7th series, 6(8). St Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. and MacWhinney, B. 1986. ‘Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms’, Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 2
- Cited by