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
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
Part V - Explanations
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
- 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. 489 - 578Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Allen, C. L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristar, A. R. 1991. ‘On diachronic sources and synchronic pattern: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals’, Language 67: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2010. ‘Impossible changes and impossible borrowings: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Breitbarth, A., Lucas, C., Willis, D. and Watts, S. (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. ‘Pro-drop in Early Modern Swedish’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 115–32.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. ‘Syntax’, in Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.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
Fleischman, S. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. 2012. ‘The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M. and Stein, D. 1992. ‘Introduction: On “internal” and “external” in syntactic change’, in Gerritsen, M. and Stein, G. (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. B. 1978. ‘The inter-relationship between phonological and grammatical change’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 159–72.Google Scholar
Harris, M. B. 1984. ‘On the strengths and weaknesses of a typological approach to historical syntax’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 183–97.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1990a. ‘A parsing theory of word order universals’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–61.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1990b. ‘Seeking motives for change in typological variation’, in Croft, W. A., Denning, K. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1975. ‘On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 113–47.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part III: Syntax, vol. II. Heidelberg: C. Winters.Google Scholar
Julien, M. and Garbacz, P. 2014. ‘Prepositions expressing source in Norwegian’, Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal 1: 191–206.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. 2002. Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 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. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1973. ‘A structural principle of language and its implications’, Language 49: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1991. ‘Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German’, in Traugott, E. Closs and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, W. 1945. ‘The influence of Cushitic on the Semitic languages of Ethiopia: A problem of substratum’, Word 1: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.) 1975. Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
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
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, C. 2009. ‘The development of negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 2011. ‘Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Elsig, M. and Rinke, E. 2013. Language acqusition and change: A morphosyntactic perspective. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, H. 1987. ‘The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin’, in Harris, M. B. and Ramat, P. (eds.), The historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993a. ‘A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, I. 2012. ‘A comparative study of word order in Old Romance’, Folia Linguistica 46: 553–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauli, V. 1958. The structural tendencies of language, vol. I: General tendencies. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Tauli, V. 1973. Standard Estonian grammar: Phonology, morphology, word-formation. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2008. ‘The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns’, in Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. and Genee, I. 2002. ‘English do: On the convergence of languages and linguists’, English Language and Linguistics 6: 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in medieval French: Verb-second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. and Detges, U. 2008. ‘Syntactic change from within and from without syntax: A usage-based analysis’, in Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M.I. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–195.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb-second. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2007. ‘Specifier-to-head reanalyses in the complementizer domain: Evidence from Welsh’, Transactions of the Philological Society 105: 432–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Casti, J. 1994. Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1992. ‘The selection of syntactic knowledge’, Language Acquisition 2: 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1954. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fries, C. 1940. ‘On the development of the structural use of word-order in Modern English’, Language 16: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002a. ‘Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb second in English’, in Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press, pp. 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002b. ‘Observations on the loss of verb second in the history of English’, in Zwart, C. J.-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax: Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on comparative Germanic syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–72.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Wilson, F. and Vikner, S. 2012. ‘Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese’, Language 88: 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, W. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin [Linguistic variability and intellectual development, trans. Buck, G. C. and Raven, F. A. 1971. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press].Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1995. At home in the Universe: The search for laws of self-organisation and complexity. Oxford University Press.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 the English language: A millennial perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–54.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Linguistic universals and linguistic change’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, K. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Santorini, B. 2013. ‘What a parsed corpus is and how to use it’, paper presented at LSA Summer Institute Workshop on diachronic syntax, www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/lsa13ws.html.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2003. ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992’, in Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. and Palmer, F. (eds.), Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 223–40.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1995. ‘Grammars for people’, Journal of Linguistics 31: 393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2011. ‘Multilingualism everywhere’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 162–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2009. ‘What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis’, English Language and Linguistics 13: 163–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. 2011. ‘Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchener, W. G. and Nowak, M. A. 2004. ‘Chaos and language’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B, 271: 701–04.Google ScholarPubMed
Narayanan, H. and Niyogi, P. 2013. ‘Language evolution, coalescent processes, and the consensus problem on a social network’, unpublished MS available at http://faculty.washington.edu/harin/LangEvol.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. 1995. ‘The logical problem of language change’, MIT AI Memo no. 1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. 1997. ‘A dynamical systems model of language change’, Complex Systems 11: 161–204.Google Scholar
O’Neil, W. 1978. ‘The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A study in the causes of language change’, Orbis 27: 248–85.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1877. ‘Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungssilben in den ältesten germanischen Dialecten’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 4: 314–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thom, R. 1989. Structural stability and morphogenesis: An outline of a general theory of models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2002. Sociolinguistic variation and change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, J. Forthcoming. ‘Extraposition is disappearing’, Language.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar
References
Adger, D. and Trousdale, G. 2007. ‘Variation in English syntax: Theoretical implications’, English Language and Linguistics 11: 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adli, A. 2013. ‘Syntactic variation in French Wh-questions: A quantitative study from the angle of Bourdieu’s sociocultural theory’, Linguistics 51(3): 473–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R. 2013. Variationist sociolinguistics, in Bayley, R., Cameron, R. and Lucas, C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press, pp. 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., Greer, K. and Holland, G. 2013. ‘Lexical frequency and syntactic variation: A test of a linguistic hypothesis’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19(2): 21–30.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. 2005. Social networks and historical linguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2003. ‘Compressed noun-phrase structure in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy’, in Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. (eds.), New media language. London and New York: Longman, pp. 169–81.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johannsson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 91: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P. 2005a. ‘Toward an integrated approach to syntactic variation: A retrospective and prospective synopsis’, in Cornips, and Corrigan, (eds.), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P. (eds.) 2005b. Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. B. 2002. Variability in spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Bristol and Portland: Elm Bank.Google Scholar
Druetta, R. 2002. ‘Qu’est-ce tu fais? État d’avancement de la grammaticalisation de est-ce que. Première partie’, Linguae etc. 2: 67–88.Google Scholar
Druetta, R. 2003. ‘Qu’est-ce tu fais? État d’avancement de la grammticalisation de est-ce que. Deuxième partie’, Linguae etc. 1: 21–35.Google Scholar
Ebert, R. P. 1981. ‘Social and stylistic variation in the order of auxiliary and non-finite verb in dependent clauses in Early New High German’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103: 204–37.Google Scholar
Ebert, R. P. 1998. Verbstellungswandel bei Jugendlichen, Frauen und Männern im 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemayer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmont, E. and Gilliéron, J. 1902–10. Atlas Linguistique de la France. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. 2009. Grammatical variation across space and time – the French interrogative system. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N. 2007. ‘A bend in the road: Subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish after 30 years of sociolinguistic research’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(6): 624–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I. A. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J. 2014. ‘Variation in English genitives across modality and genre’, English Language and Linguistics 18: 471–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2013. ‘Sources of variability relevant to the cognitive sociolinguist, and corpus- as well as psycholinguistic methods and notions to handle them’, Journal of Pragmatics 52: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. 2002. ‘Variation and syntactic theory’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 267–82.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W. B. 2013. ‘Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics’, in Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 491–509.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. London: George Allen and Unwin; Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 2009. ‘Getting off the GoldVarb standard: introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis’, Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2002. ‘Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55: 141–72.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 2000. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 629–39.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Romaine, S. 2005. ‘“We had like to have been killed by thunder & lightening”: The semantic and pragmatic history of a construction that like to disappeared’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1999. ‘Introduction’, in Lass, R. (ed.), Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: La Société Linguistique de Paris.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 2005. ‘A modular approach to sociolinguistic variation in syntax: The gerund in Ecuadorian Spanish’, in Cornips, and Corrigan, (eds.), pp. 31–53.Google Scholar
Myers, S. 2011. ‘Innovation in a conservative region: The Kentish Sermons genitive system’, English Language and Linguistics 15: 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nagy, N. G., Aghdasi, N., Denis, D. and Motut, A. 2011. ‘Null subjects in heritage languages: Contact effects in a cross-linguistic context’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(2): 135–44.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A.C. and Livert, D. 2007. ‘Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community’, Language 83(4): 770–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reifsnyder, K. L. 2003. Vernacular versus emerging standard: An examination of dialect usage in early modern Augsburg (1500–1650). Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1984. ‘On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory’, Folia Linguistica 18: 409–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1996. ‘Internal vs. external factors in socio-historical explanations of change: A fruitless dichotomy?’, in Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California, pp. 478–90.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2007. ‘Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 143–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. 2011. Syntactic variation and diglossia in French’, Salford Working Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 1: 13–26.Google Scholar
Sapp, C. D. 2011. The verbal complex in subordinate clauses from medieval to modern German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sells, P., Rickford, J. R. and Wasow, T. 1996. ‘Variation in negative inversion in AAVE: An optimality theoretic approach’, in Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S. and Solomon, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 161–6.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. ‘Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English’, in Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413–41.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. and Hinrichs, L. 2008. ‘Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres’, in Nevalainen, T., Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P. and Korhonen, M. (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Rosenbach, A., Bresnan, J. and Wolk, C. 2013. ‘Culturally conditioned language change? A multi-variate analysis of genitive constructions in ARCHER’, in Hundt, M. (ed.), Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. 2006. ‘Historical change in synchronic perspective: The legacy of British dialects’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 447–506.Google Scholar
Tailleur, S. 2013. ‘The French wh interrogative system: Est-ce que, clefting?’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. ‘First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English’, International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3): 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. and Labov, W. 1983. ‘Constraints on the agentless passive’, Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar
Winford, D. 1996. ‘The problem of syntactic variation’, in Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S. and Solomon, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 177–92.Google Scholar
References
Aarts, B. 1998. ‘Binominal noun phrases in English’, Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 117–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. [1972] 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arends, J. and Perl, M. 1995. Early Surinamese creole texts: A collection of 18th-century Sranan and Saamaka documents. Frankfurt: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Ball, C. N. 1991. ‘The historical development of the it-cleft’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bentivoglio, P. and Sedano, M. 1989. ‘Haber: ¿Un verbo impersonal? Un estudio sobre el español de Caracas’, Estudios sobre el español de América y lingüística afroamericana: Ponencias presentadas en el 45 congreso internacional de americanistas. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo, pp. 59–81.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1971. ‘Subjectivity in language’, in Problems in general linguistics, trans. Meek, M. E.. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, pp. 223–30. (First published in 1958 as ‘De la subjectivité dans le langage’, in Benveniste, É., Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 258–66.)Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and early Modern English’, in Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1984. ‘The language bioprogram hypothesis’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 212–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2004. ‘Subject clitics in English: A case of degrammaticalization?’, in Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 227–56.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2014. ‘If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions’, in Hundt, M. (ed.), Late Modern English syntax in context. Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–90.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2003. ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
DeGraff, M. 2005. ‘Morphology and word order in “creolization” and beyond’, in Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. S. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–372.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 2010. ‘Category change in English with and without structural change’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–28.Google Scholar
Detges, U. 2006. ‘From speaker to subject: The obligatorization of the Old French subject pronouns’, in Andersen, H. Leth, Birkelund, M. and Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard (eds.), La Linguistique au coeur: Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus. Mélanges offerts à Lene Schøsler à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 2002. ‘A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 103–20.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 2006. ‘Context types in grammaticalization as constructions’, Constructions SV1–9. http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/constructions/article/viewFile/24/29.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Wilkins, D. 2000. ‘In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages’, Language 76: 546–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Paulasto, H. 2008. English and Celtic in contact. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. ‘Syntax’, in Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E. J. and Yuasa, E. 2008. ‘A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization’, Journal of Linguistics 44: 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, L. 2011. ‘The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English NP: Identification and intensification’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. and Davidse, K. 2011. ‘The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change’, English Language and Linguistics 15: 251–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. 2012. ‘Negative cycles and grammaticalization’, in Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 570–79.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2002. ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?’, in Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P. and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What makes grammaticalization – a look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. and Kemenade, A. 2012. ‘The interaction between syntax, information structure, and prosody in word order change’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 803–21.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 2011. ‘Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics’, in Auer, P. and Pfänder, S. (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. [1993] 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd, rev. edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Knight, C. (eds.) 1998. Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. 2001. ‘Beyond “pathways” and ”unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization’, in Campbell, L. (ed.), Grammaticalization: A critical assessment, special issue of Language Sciences 23: 265–340.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages (Historisk-filologiske Meddeleser 1). Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. P. (eds.), Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.Google Scholar
Keller, R. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language, trans. Nerlich, B.. London: Routledge (first published in 1990 in German).Google Scholar
King, R. 2000. The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island case study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Linguistic universals and linguistic change’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 171–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2012. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. 2000. ‘Syntax without natural selection: How compositionality emerges from vocabulary in a population of learners’, in Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Hurford, J. R. (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language: Social function and the origins of linguistic form. Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–23.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2009. ‘“A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon”: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions’, in Helmbrecht, J., Nishina, Y., Shin, Y.-M., Skopeteas, S. and Verhoeven, E. (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 329–46.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 2008. ‘Information structure and grammaticalization’, in Seoane, E. and López-Couso, M. J. (eds., in collaboration with Fanego, T.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 207–29.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, M. J. 2010. ‘Subjectification and intersubjectification’, in Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Historical pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 127–63.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. [1912] 1958. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, in Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, pp. 130–48. (Originally published in Scientia (Rivista di scienza) XXII, 1912.)Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.) 2012. The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oliveira, M. 2000. ‘The pronominal subject in Italian and Brazilian Portuguese’, in Kato, M. A. and Negrão, E. V. (eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt a. M.: Vervuert, pp. 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. L. 2012. The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. and Bloom, P. 1990. ‘Natural language and natural selection’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rhee, S. 2008. ‘Through a borrowed mouth: Reported speech and subjectification in Korean’, in Sutcliffe, P., Stanford, L. and Lommel, A. (eds.), LACUS forum 34: Speech and beyond, pp. 202–10. Available online at www.lacus.org/volumes/34/217_rhee_s.pdf.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. and Givón, T. (eds.) 2009. Syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112–71.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. 2012. ‘Stress clash and word order changes in the left periphery in Old and Middle English’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 873–83.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. 1988. ‘Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching’, in Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. and Singmaster, H. (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 389–405.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. ‘Dialogic contexts as motivation for syntactic change’, in Cloutier, R. A., Hamilton-Brehm, A. M. and Kretzschmar, W. (eds.), Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 11–27.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2012. ‘The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes’, in Kytö, M. (ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 221–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and König, E. 1991. ‘The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited’, in Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyk, P. n.d. (c. 1765) Nieuwe en nooit bevoorens geziene onderwyzinge in het Bastert Engels, of Neeger Engels, zoo als het zelve in de Hollandsze Colonien gebruikt word. Amsterdam: Jacobus van Egmont.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. 2012. ‘On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies’, in Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L. and Mortelmans, T. (eds., in collaboration with Cornillie, B., Cuyckens, H. and Leuschner, T.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. and Detges, U. 2008. ‘Syntactic change from within and without syntax: A usage-based approach’, in Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. R. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.) 2013. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winford, D. and Migge, B. 2007. ‘Substrate influence on the emergence of the TMA systems of the Surinamese Creoles’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 22: 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.) 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. D. 2000. ‘Internal and external forces in language change’, Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar