Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:22:39.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Reanalysis

from Part I - Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

By
Nerea Madariaga
Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Ian Roberts
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 70 - 91
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, H. 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 2001. ‘Introduction’, in Andersen, H. (ed.), Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. 2003. ‘Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition’, in Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 424–40.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) 2001. Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J. 2010. Control as movement. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkovskij, V. I. 1968. Sravnitel´no-istoričeskij sintaksis vostočnoslavjanskix jazykov. Členy predloženija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Borkovskij, V. I. 1979. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: sintaksis – složnoe predloženie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational approach to language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1995. ‘Autonomy and functionalist linguistics’, Language 71: 490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. 2009. ‘Analysing reanalysis’, Lingua 119: 1728–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. 2012. ‘The course of actualization’, Language 88: 601–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. and Kaye, J. 1990. ‘A computational learning model for metrical phonology’, Cognition 34: 137–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emonds, J. 1970. ‘Root and structure-preserving transformations’, unpubilshed PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T. 1990. Syntactic change: Toward a theory of historical syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 1988. ‘The rise of the for NP to V construction: an explanation’, in Nixon, G. and Honey, J. (eds.), A historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, pp. 67–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1998. ‘Unambiguous triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F. and Avelar, J. (eds.) 2012. Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A. 2012. ‘The historical syntax problem: reanalysis and directionality’, in Jonas, et al. (eds.), pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
Hale, M. 1998. ‘Diachronic syntax’, Syntax 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22: 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. 2005. Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.) 2012. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2012. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, et al. (eds.), pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Klima, E. 1965. ‘Studies in diachronic transformational syntax’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Journal of Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), 629–739.Google Scholar
Kuriłowicz, J. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 57–139.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Sobin, N. 2000. ‘The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 2012. ‘Explaining matrix/subordinate domain discrepancies’, in Aelbrecht, L., Haegeman, L. and Nye, R. (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 159–76.Google Scholar
Lomtev, T. P. 1956. Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic Minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madariaga, N. 2011. ‘Infinitive clauses and dative subjects in Russian’, Russian Linguistics 35: 301–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madariaga, N. 2012. ‘Formal mismatches and functional advantage in syntactic change: The case of Old and Middle Russian non-verbal predicates’, Diachronica 29: 231–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. 1912 [1958]. Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and explanation’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 177–92.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.) 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ojansuu, H. 1909. Mikael Agricolan kielestä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalisation, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, et al. (eds.), pp. 320–35.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. 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
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 141–77.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. 2002. ‘From etymology to historical pragmatics’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. and Trousdale, G. (eds.) 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1997. ‘Clarifying the notion “parameter”’, Biolinguistics 1: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2010. ‘Features in reanalysis and grammaticalization’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 129–47.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 95–188.Google Scholar
Whitman, J. 2000. ‘Relabeling’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 220–40.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1980. ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–38.Google Scholar
Wu, Z. 2004. Grammaticalization and language change in Chinese. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. 2002. ‘Grammar competition and language change’, in Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects on morphological change. Oxford University Press, pp. 367–80.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Reanalysis
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
  • Online publication: 28 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Reanalysis
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
  • Online publication: 28 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Reanalysis
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
  • Online publication: 28 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.005
Available formats
×