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
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional Approaches
- Index
- References
30 - Typological Approaches
from Part VI - Models and Approaches
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
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional 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. 664 - 686Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, J. N. 2013. Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. 2003. ‘Differential object marking: iconicity vs economy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristar, A. R. 1991. ‘On diachronic sources and synchronic patterns: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals’, Language 67: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. and McCloskey, J. 2007. ‘On the relation of typology to theoretical syntax’, Linguistic Typology 11(1): 285–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1968. ‘Mutations of linguistic categories’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 2007. ‘Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments’, Linguistic Typology 11(1): 239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubeník, V. 1998. A historical syntax of late middle Indo-Aryan (Apabrahṃśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1988. ‘The diachronic dimension in explanation’, in Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 350–79.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2006. ‘Language change and universals’, in Mairal, R. and Gil, J. (eds.), Linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–94.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2008. ‘Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation’, in Good, J. (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 108–21.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. 2008. ‘The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance’, in Eyþórsson, Þ. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–42.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2008. ‘Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations’, Folia Linguistica 42: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S. 2011. ‘Language universals and linguistic knowledge’, in Song, J. J. (ed.), Handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford University Press, pp. 227–49.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, S. 2012. ‘Cognitive explanations, distributional evidence, and diachrony’, Studies in Language 36: 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S. 2014. ‘Competing motivations and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations?’, in MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford University Press, pp. 282–98.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L. and Mortelmans, T. (eds.) 2012. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language 57: 626–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 1992. ‘The Grenberghian word order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 2006a. ‘Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory’, in Ameka, F., Dench, A. and Evans, N. (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207–34.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2006b. ‘Functionalism and the metalanguage – theory confusion’, in Libben, G. W. G., Priestly, T., Smyth, R. and Wang, S. (eds.), Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing. Taipei: Crane, pp. 27–59.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. A. 1985. ‘Competing motivations’, in Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 343–66.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.) 2013. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildea, S. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. and Shibatani, M. (eds.) 2009. Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neurocognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. ‘Some universals of language, 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
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language universals, with particular reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1978. ‘Diachrony, synchrony and language universals’, in Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. H. and Moravcsick, E. A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory. Stanford University Press, pp. 62–91.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1995. ‘The Diachronic typological approach’, in Shibatani, M. and Bynon, T. (eds.), Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1990. ‘Seeking motives for change in typological variation’, in Croft, W., 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 word order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendery, R. 2012. Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hercus, L. 1982. The Bagandji language (Pacific Linguistics. Series B-67). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Holton, G. 2008. ‘The rise and fall of semantic alignment in Northern Halmahera, Indonesia’, in Donohue, M. and Wichmann, S. (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press, pp. 252–76.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. and Moravcsik, E. (eds.) 2014. Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. 2008. ‘Split intransitives, experiencer objects and “transimpersonal” constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection’, in Donohue, M. and Wichmann, S. (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press, pp. 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslova, E. 2000. ‘A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals’, Linguistic Typology 4: 307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W.B. 2006. ‘Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia)’, Lingua 116: 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W.B. 2008. ‘Indexicals as sources of case markers in Australian languages’, in Josephson, F. and Söhrman, I. (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1991. ‘Active/agentive case marking and its motivation’, Language 67: 510–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 2003. ‘Functional perspectives on syntactic change’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 552–72.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 2008. ‘The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking’, in Donohue, M. and Wichmann, S. (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press, pp. 297–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. and Chafe, W. 1999. ‘What are S, A, and O?’, Studies in Language 23(3): 569–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. ‘On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns’, Lingua 45: 233–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2002. ‘Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally-based optimality theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2004. ‘Typological evidence and Universal Grammar’, Studies in Language 28: 526–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2005. Possible and probable languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 2007. ‘What, if anything, is typology?’, Linguistic Typology 11(1): 231–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, H. 1987. ‘The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin’, in Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. and Rossou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rude, N. 1991. ‘On the origin of the Nez Perce Ergative NP suffix’, International Journal of American Linguistics 57: 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rude, N. 1997. ‘On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian’, International Journal of American Linguistics 63: 113–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, E. and Lopez-Couso, M.J. 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, R. 1967. An elementary Luo grammar. With vocabularies. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stroński, K. 2011. Synchronic and diachronic aspects of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznan: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R.B. 2005. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E., Barðdal, J. and Cennamo, M. (eds.) 2013. Argument structure in flux: The Naples-Capri papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S. 2013. Alignment and ergativity in New Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S. and De Cuypere, L. 2009. ‘The rise of ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the role of grammaticalization’, Folia Linguistica Historica 30: 1–24.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1982. ‘The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance’, in Vincent, N. and Harris, M. (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb. London: Croom Helm, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Viti, C. (ed.) 2015. Perspectives on historical syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, F. H., Grunow-Hårsta, K. and Wrona, Y. (eds.) 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar