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
18 - Acquisition and Learnability
from Part III - Principles and Constraints
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
- 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. 381 - 400Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J. (eds.) 1981. The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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 Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1992. ‘The selection of syntactic knowledge’, Language Acquisition 2: 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1954. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Grimm, J. 1848. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, vol. 1. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Heinz, J. and Idsardi, W. 2011. ‘Sentence and word complexity’, Science 333(6040): 295–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Wilson, F. and Vikner, S. 2012. ‘Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese’, Language 88: 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, K. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago linguistics society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W. 2013. ‘Types of explanation in history’, Language 89.4: e18–e38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. 2009. ‘What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis’, English Language and Linguistics 13: 163–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neil, W. 1978. ‘The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A case study in the causes of language change’, Orbis 27: 248–85.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. 2011. ‘Children’s grammatical conservatism: Implications for syntactic theory’, in Danis, N. et al. (eds.), BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University conference on language development, vol. 1. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1995. ‘Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework’, Language 71: 533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by