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
- 19 The Actuation Problem
- 20 Inertia
- 21 Gradience and Gradualness vs Abruptness
- 22 Cyclicity
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
21 - Gradience and Gradualness vs Abruptness
from Part IV - Major Issues and Themes
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
- 19 The Actuation Problem
- 20 Inertia
- 21 Gradience and Gradualness vs Abruptness
- 22 Cyclicity
- 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. 446 - 466Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, C. 1990. ‘Review of van Kemenade, Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English’, Language 66: 146–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, K. 2005. ‘What’s the better move?’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2: 153–88.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 267–94.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. and Christina, R. 2007. ‘How to start a V2 declarative clause: Transfer of syntax vs. information structure in L2 German’, Nordlyd 34(3): 29–56.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Durrleman-Tame, S. 2008. The syntax of Jamaican creole: A cartographic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitler, T. and Westergaard, M. 2014. ‘Word order variation in late Middle English: The effect of information structure and audience design’, in Bech, K. and Eide, K. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. 2000. ‘Reanalysis in word order stability and change’, in Sornicola, R., Poppe, E. and Shisha-Halevy, A. (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 119–32.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, Lund University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, F. and Pedersen, I. L. 1997. ‘Hovedsætningsordstilling i underordnede sætninger’ [Main clause word order in embedded clauses], Danske Folkemål 39: 55–112.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. 1994. The step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002. ‘Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 88–106.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, R. 1973. ‘Om sluttstilling av verbet i norsk folkemål’ [On the final position of the verb in Norwegian spoken language], in Beito, O. T. and Hoff, I. (eds.), Frå norsk målføregransking: Utvalde utgreiingar 1908–1969. Oslo, Bergen and Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.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, vol. 2: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change,’ in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Cambridge, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699–729.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
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. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.) (2002). Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. and Westergaard, M. 2007. ‘Language acquisition and language change: Inter-relationships’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5): 396–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2002. ‘Verb-object order in Old English: Variation as grammatical competition’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 276–99.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. 1999. ‘Universal bilingualism’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3): 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sollid, H. 2003. ‘Dialektsyntaks i Nordreisa: Språkdannelse og stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk’ [Dialect syntax in Nordreisa: Language creation and stabilization in a contact situation between Kven-Finnish and Norwegian], unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2010. ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–44.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
Valian, V. 1990. ‘Null subjects: A problem for parameter-setting models of language acquisition’, Cognition 35(2): 105–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valian, V. 1991. ‘Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children’, Cognition 40: 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. and Westergaard, M. 2012. ‘Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English’, in Meurman Solin, A., López-Couso, M. J. and Los, B. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English (Oxford Studies in the History of English 2). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–118.Google Scholar
Vittersø, G. 2004. ‘Fra sva til sav: Stabilitet og endring i norske leddsetninger 1200–1875’ [From sva to sav: Stability and change in Norwegian embedded clauses 1200–1875], unpublished cand.philol. thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Waldmann, C. 2008. ‘Input och output: Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser’ [Input and output: Word order in Swedish children’s main and embedded clauses]. Lundastudier A 65, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Warner, A. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.Google Scholar
Warner, A. 1983. ‘Review of D. Lightfoot, Principles of diachronic syntax’, Journal of Linguistics 19:187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 2007. ‘Parameters of variation between verb-subject and subject-verb order in late Middle English’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2008. ‘Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues’, Lingua 118(12): 1841–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009a. ‘Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1): 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009b. ‘The development of word order in Old and Middle English: The role of information structure and first language acquisition’, Diachronica 26(1): 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009c. The acquisition of word order: Micro-cues, information structure and economy (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2009d. ‘Many small catastrophes: Gradualism in a microparametric perspective’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2013. ‘The acquisition of linguistic variation: Parameters vs. micro-cues’, in Lohndal, T. (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 275–98.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. and Bentzen, K. 2007. ‘The (non-)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses’, in Gülzow, I. and Gagarina, N. (eds.), Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept [Studies on Language Acquisition]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 271–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M., Vangsnes, Ø.A. and Lohndal, T. 2012. ‘Norwegian som: The complementizer that climbed to the matrix Left Periphery and caused Verb Second violations’, in Bianchi, V. and Chesi, C. (eds.), Enjoy linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Siena: CISCL Press, pp. 329–43.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. 1999. ‘Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage’, in Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Shillock, R. (eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing, special issue of Lingua 106: 23–79.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2010. ‘Universal Grammar, statistics or both?’, in Yang, C. (ed.), Language acquisition (Critical concepts in linguistics), vol. II. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 128–40.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by