Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:38:21.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The myth of the complete sentence – a response to Traugott

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

ALEXANDER BERGS
ALEXANDER BERGS*
Affiliation:
Institute of English and American Studies, Osnabrück University, Neuer Graben 40, 49069 Osnabrück, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This brief response to Elizabeth Closs Traugott's contribution ‘“Insubordination” in the light of the Uniformitarian Principle’ could begin with John Lennon: ‘Imagine there is no. . . sentence.’

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 311 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 Million Words, 1990–present (COCA). Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessed 3 April 2017).Google Scholar
Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus . 2009. Compiled by Antonette diPaolo Healey with John Price Wilkin & Xin Xiang. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project 2009. (http://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doecorpus/) (accessed 3 April 2017).Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts . 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English)Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2010. Data in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 33–68. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. The logic of nonstandard English. In Paolo Giglioli, Pier (ed.), Language and social context, 179–216. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going-to-future in written English: A corpus-based investigation into language change in progress. In Hickey, Raymond & Puppel, Stanislav (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1993. Central concepts of syntax. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9.1, 89–117. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim & Weinert, Regina. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOW: News on the Web Corpus. (http://corpus.byu.edu/now/) (accessed 3 April 2017).Google Scholar
Ries, John. 1931. Was ist ein Satz? Prague: Tausig & Tausig.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. [1916] 2011. Course in general linguistics, ed. Meisel, Perry & Saussy, Haun. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Seidel, Eugen. 1935. Geschichte und Kritik der wichtigsten Satzdefinitionen. Jena: Biedermann.Google Scholar