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
20 - Inertia
from Part IV - Major Issues and Themes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
By
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. 425 - 445Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, M. 1987. ‘From Old French to the theory of pro-drop’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D., Heycock, C., Smith, J. and Thoms, G. 2013. ‘Remarks on negation in varieties of Scots’, paper presented at the workshop ‘The Comparative Syntax of English’, University of Cambridge, 7 November.Google Scholar
Battistella, E. and Lobeck, A. 1991. ‘On verb fronting, inflection movement, and Aux support’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36: 225–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP-parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Eythórssen, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–114.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
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Subjects, Tense and verb movement’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 263–302.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘The significance of what hasn’t happened’, paper presented at the 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference, Lisbon, 4 July.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W. H. 1995. ‘Wh-questions in Singapore colloquial English’, unpublished honours thesis, Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1985. ‘The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered’, in Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W. F. and van der Leek, F. (eds.), Papers from the 4th international conference on historical linguistics, Amsterdam, April 10–13, 1985. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. and Faarlund, J. T. 2014. English: The language of the Vikings (Olomouc Modern Language Monographs 3). Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. and Trips, C. 2002. ‘Variation and change in Old and Middle English: On the validity of the Double Base Hypothesis’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 1999. ‘Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Synchronic and diachronic variation in the Germanic languages’, PhD thesis, University of Geneva (published as Haeberli, E. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S. and Wilson, F. 2013. ‘Acquisition in variation (and vice versa): V-to-T in Faroese children’, Language Acquisition 20(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Vikner, S. and Wilson, F. 2011. ‘Residual V-to-I in Faroese and its lack in Danish: Detecting the final stages of a syntactic change’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 137–65.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Vikner, S. and Wilson, F. 2012. ‘Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese’, Language 88(3): 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, T. 1999. ‘Verb phrase syntax in the history of Icelandic’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Hróarsdottir, T. 2000. Word order change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1991. ‘Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset’, in Trudgill, P. and Chambers, J. K. (eds.), Dialects of English: Studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman, pp. 148–60.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles I-VII. London and Copenhagen: Allen and Unwin.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 English: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle 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
Lehmann, W. 1973. ‘A structural principle of language and its implications’, Language 49: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle 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(2): 275–302.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’, AI Memo no. 1516, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P and Berwick, R. 1997. ‘A dynamical systems model for language change’, Complex Systems 11: 161–204.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1995. ‘The loss of verb second and English and French’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 200–26.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. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2001. ‘Language change and learnability’, in Bertolo, S. (ed.), Parametric linguistics and learnability. Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–125.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M. and Roberts, I. 2015. ‘A parameter hierarchy for passives’, talk given at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University College London, 18 September.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English, Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1997. ‘V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 326–52.Google Scholar
Vance, B. 1988. ‘Null subjects and syntactic change in medieval French’, unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in medieval French: Verb second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1974. ‘Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX’, in Anderson, J. and Jones, C. (eds.), Historical linguistics: Proceedings of the first international congress of historical linguistics, Edinburgh, September 1973, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 339–76.Google Scholar
Warner, A. 1997. ‘The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 380–93.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb second. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhiming, B. 2001. ‘The origins of empty categories in Singapore English’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 16: 275–319.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G. 1983. ‘Cliticisation vs. inflection: English n’t’, Language 59: 502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by