Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T11:39:36.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic change and the autonomy thesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

David Lightfoot
David Lightfoot
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. Despite much activity, the recent attention paid by generativists to diachronic syntax has led to no significant implications for a general theory of grammar and, from a purely historical viewpoint, has failed to focus on any well-defined concepts of historical change. The papers in this field stand largely in isolation from each other and show few common threads of interest or argumentation; there is little agreement on even the most fundamental concepts. Modern diachronic syntacticians, it is true, have no legacy equivalent to what was handed down to phonologists, and they must do their own pioneering work. This will preclude rapid progress, but it does not explain the current disarray of the field. The fault for that lies in ourselves and is a consequence of a theoretical approach to syntax precisely as barren as that of the neogrammarians.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , September 1977 , pp. 191 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. (1969). A study in diachronic morphophonemics: the Ukrainian prefixes. Lg 45. 553–574.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1972). Diphthongisation. Lg 48. 11–50Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1972). Abductive and deductive change. Lg 49. 765–793.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1972). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1975). Was there a generative historical linguistics? In Dahlstedt, K-H. (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics 2: proceedings of the Second International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, University of Umea, June 1973. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Series, I.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Butler, M. (1975). Middle English impersonal constructions and the notion ‘subject of a sentence’. (Paper read to the Linguistic Society of America Winter Meeting, San Francisco.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Conditions on rules of grammar. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh Movement. In Akmajian, A., Culicover, P. & Wasow, T. (eds), Studies informal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Closs, [Traugott] E. (1965). Diachronic syntax and generative grammar. Lg 41. 402–415.Google Scholar
Delbrück, B. & Windisch, E. (1871-1888). Syntaktische Forsehungen. 5 vols. Halle.Google Scholar
de, Rijk R. (1972). Relative clauses in Basque: a guided tour. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C. (eds), The Chicago which hunt. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Dillard, L. (1972). Black English: its history and usage in the United States. New York: Vintage Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, R. (1975). Harris & Chomsky at the syntax-semantics boundary. In Hockney, et al. (eds), Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics. Dordrccht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. (1974). Semantic conditions on surface structures. (Upuhlislied Ph.D. dissertation.) Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's field trip. PCLS 7.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1975). Toward a discourse definition of syntax. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1976) Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li, C. (ed), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 149–188.Google Scholar
Halle, (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1965). Transformational theory. Lg 41. 363–401.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. & Thompson, S. (1973) On the applicability of root transformations. LIn 4. 465–498.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Lg 51. 639–671.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1929). Remarques sur l'évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. TCLP 2. (Reprinted in Jakobson, R. Selected writings, Vol. I. 7–116. The Hague: Mouton, 1962.)Google Scholar
Jankowsky, K. (1972). The neogrammarians. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909-1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kageyama, T. (1974). Relational grammar and the history of Subject Raising. Glossa 9. 165–181.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. (1974). Opacity and recoverability in phonology. CJL 19. 134–149.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1974). The Functional Principle: generalising the notion ‘subject of’. PCLS 10.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1975). Some universals of Passive in relational grammar. PCLS II.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Studies in diachronic transformational syntax. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. LIn 5. 117–136.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds), Semantics. Cambridge University Press. 232–296.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1968). Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Fiengo, R. (1974). Complement object deletion. LIn 5. 535–572.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1973). Indeterminacy in syntax. CJL 19. 150–166.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1974). The diachronic analysis of English modals. In Anderson, J. & Jones, C. (eds), Historical linguistics: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Vol. I. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1975a). Diachronic syntax: extraposition and deep structure re-analyses. In Kaisse, E. & Hankamer, J. (eds), Proceedings of the 5th meeting of the Northeastern Linguistic Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1975b). Natural logic and the Greek moods. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1976a). The theoretical implications of Subject Raising. FL 14. 257–285.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1976b). The base component as a locus of syntactic change. In Christie, W. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 17–32.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1976c). Trace theory and twice-moved NPs. LIn 7. 559–582.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (in prep). Principles of diachronic syntax.Google Scholar
Postal, P. & Ross, J. (1971). Tough Movement si, tough Deletion no! LIn 2. 544–546.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. (1976). Commentary on Lightfoot, 1976b. In Christie, W. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 32–33.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1891-1898). A new English grammar, logical and historical. 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Teeter, K. (1974). Some Algic etymologies. IJAL 40. 197–201.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1969). Toward a grammar of syntactic change. Lingua 23. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. (1972). On the notion ‘restructuring’ in historical syntax. Stanford occasional papers in linguistics 2.Google Scholar
van, der Gaaf W. (1904). The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Vendryes, J. (1902). Reflexions sur les lois phonétiques. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Antoine Meillet. Paris. 115–131.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1963-1973). An historical syntax of the English language. vols 1–3b. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warburton, I. & Prabhu, N. S. (1975). Diachronic processes and synchronic grammars Glossa 9. 202–217.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. (1977). Transformations and the lexicon. In Akmajian, A., Culicover, P. & Wasow, T. (eds), Studies in formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. (1892). On Delbrück's Vedic syntax [Review of Delbrück. Altindische Syntax.] AJPh 13. 271–306.Google Scholar