Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:31:52.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philological coda. Noise: an appreciation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

ROBERT D. FULK
ROBERT D. FULK*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Indiana University Bloomington, Ballantine Hall 415, 1020 East Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405-7103, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Plainly, the effort to apply to historical language study the insights to be derived from synchronic linguistic analysis is fraught with difficulties. The problem is usually conceptualized – as it is by several of the contributors to the present collection of studies – as a difficult marriage of disciplined methods to obstreperous data, a mismatched union somehow to be mediated by the Uniformitarian Principle. To understand the issues properly, then, it would seem a prerequisite to be able to identify what, exactly, the Uniformitarian Principle is. Yet that question itself has no simple answer, in part because the question can be interpreted in at least two ways, both of them bearing directly upon the aims of this collection.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 431 - 438
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

Anderson, James M. 1989. Historical linguistics. In O'Grady, William & Dobrovolsky, Michael (eds.), Contemporary linguistics: An introduction, 189–222. US edition prepared by Aronoff, Mark. New York: St Martin's.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), Blackwell handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–99. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Thomas. 2016. Ictus as stress or length: The effect of tempo. In Neidorf, Leonard, Pascual, Rafael J. & Shippey, Tom (eds.), Old English philology: Studies in honour of R. D. Fulk, 34–51. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. 2016a. Philological methods. In Kytö, Merja & Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 95–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. 2016b. A philological tour of HEL. In Chapman, Don, Moore, Colette & Wilcox, Miranda (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language VII: Generalizing vs. particularizing methodologies in historical linguistic analysis, 11–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gauch, Hugh G. 2012. Scientific method in brief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1 (1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 2003. Alliteration and sound change in early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russom, Geoffrey R. 2017. English historical metrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 2010. Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In Winters, Margaret E., Tissari, Heli & Allan, Kathryn (eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics, 3–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar