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
- 13 Universal Grammar
- 14 Abduction
- 15 Transparency
- 16 Uniformitarianism
- 17 Markedness, Naturalness and Complexity
- 18 Acquisition and Learnability
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
17 - Markedness, Naturalness and Complexity
from Part III - Principles and Constraints
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
- 13 Universal Grammar
- 14 Abduction
- 15 Transparency
- 16 Uniformitarianism
- 17 Markedness, Naturalness and Complexity
- 18 Acquisition and Learnability
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- 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. 360 - 380Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Ackema, P. 2002. ‘A morphological approach to the absence of expletive PRO’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 291–319.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Paola, C. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 58–74.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. 1969. Acquisition of syntax in children 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’, in Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 104–31.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1977. ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1990. ‘Understood subjects in English diaries’, Multilingua 9: 157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2006. ‘Against markedness (and what to replace it with)’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, E. 2005. ‘Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 182–98. Available on line http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/article/viewFile/796/685.Google Scholar
Hume, E. 2011. ‘Markedness’, in van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C.J., Hume, E. and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 1. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 79–106.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1941. Kindersparche, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. English translation: Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals, trans. Kiesler, A.. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Koster, J. and Reuland, E. (eds.) 1991. Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. 2007. A unification of morphology and syntax: Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires, A. and Taylor, H. 2007. ‘The syntax of wh-in situ and common ground’, Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43(2): 201–15.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986. ‘Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. 1988. ‘Language acquisition: Learnability, maturation, and the fixing of parameters’, Cognitive Neuropsychology 5(2): 235–65.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1931. ‘Die phonologischen Systeme’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 96–116.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. 1996. The prefunctional stage of first language acquisition: A crosslinguistic study. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. 2005. ‘Peripheral positions in early Greek’, in Stavrou, M. and Terzi, A. (eds.), Advances in Greek generative syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. and Hulk, A. 2013. ‘Grammatical gender and the notion of default: Insights from language acquisition’, Lingua 137: 128–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlachos, C. 2012. ‘Wh-constructions and the division of labour between syntax and the interfaces’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Patras.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. and Manzini, M. R. 1987. ‘Parameters and learnability in binding theory’, in Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (eds.), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by