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
- 9 The Comparative Method and Comparative Reconstruction
- 10 Internal Reconstruction
- 11 Corpora and Quantitative Methods
- 12 Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Syntax: The Parametric Comparison Method
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
9 - The Comparative Method and Comparative Reconstruction
from Part II - Methods and Tools
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
- 9 The Comparative Method and Comparative Reconstruction
- 10 Internal Reconstruction
- 11 Corpora and Quantitative Methods
- 12 Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Syntax: The Parametric Comparison Method
- 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. 189 - 206Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Allen, W. S. 1953. ‘Relationship in comparative linguistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 52: 52–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2013. ‘Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction’, in Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 438–57.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. and Eythórsson, T. 2012. ‘Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the comparative method’, in Boas, H. C. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 257–308.Google Scholar
Bomhard, A. R. 2008. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: comparative phonology, morphology, and vocabulary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 3rd edn. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. and Harris, A. C. 2002. ‘Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “myths and the prehistory of grammars”’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, T. and Bowern, C. 2010. An introduction to historical linguistics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, G. J. 2011. Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolgopolsky, A. 1998. The Nostratic macrofamily and linguistic palaeontology. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. 1937. Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris.Google Scholar
Friedrich, P. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of the meaningful elements (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 1). Butte, MT: Journal of Indo-European Studies.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 2000–2. Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns’, in Ferraresi, G. and Goldback, M. (eds.), Principles of Syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1950. ‘The principal step in comparative grammar’, Language 26: 357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1963. ‘On the history of the comparative method’, Anthropological Linguistics 5: 1–11.Google Scholar
Jeffers, R., 1976. ‘Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction’, in Christie, W. M. Jr (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the second international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Kümmel, M. J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. The Sounds of the world’s languages. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2002. ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. 1967. The comparative method in historical linguistics, trans. Ford, Gordon B.. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1996. ‘The comparative method as heuristic’, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, E., West, P. and Coleman, J. 2000. ‘Proto-Indo-European laryngeals were vocalic’, Diachronica 17: 351–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D. and Eska, J. F. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suthiwan, T. and Tadmor, U. 2009. ‘Loanwords in Thai’, in Haspelmath, M. and Tadmor, U. (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter pp. 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trask, L. and McColl Millar, R. 2007. Trask’s historical linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2013. ‘The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction’, Diachronica 30: 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, L. D. 1980. ‘A note on historical linguistics and Marc Bloch’s comparative method’, History and Theory 19: 154–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, C. 1976a. ‘Syntax and metrics in the Dipylon vase inscription’, in Davies, A. Morpurgo and Meid, W. (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 431–41.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1976b. ‘Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems’, in Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. and Mufwene, S. S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, April 22, 1976. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 305–26.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1991. ‘Etymologies, equations and comparanda: Types and values, and criteria for judgment’, in Baldi, P. (ed.), Patterns of change, change of patterns: Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–82.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1995. How to kill a dragon: Aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2011. ‘Reconstructing last week’s weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives’, Journal of Linguistics 47: 407–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by