Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:15:17.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Non-syntactic Sources and Triggers of Syntactic Change

from Part V - Explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

By
Laurel J. Brinton  and
Elizabeth Closs Traugott
Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Ian Roberts
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 556 - 578
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 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

Aarts, B. 1998. ‘Binominal noun phrases in English’, Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 117–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. [1972] 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arends, J. and Perl, M. 1995. Early Surinamese creole texts: A collection of 18th-century Sranan and Saamaka documents. Frankfurt: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Ball, C. N. 1991. ‘The historical development of the it-cleft’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bentivoglio, P. and Sedano, M. 1989. ‘Haber: ¿Un verbo impersonal? Un estudio sobre el español de Caracas’, Estudios sobre el español de América y lingüística afroamericana: Ponencias presentadas en el 45 congreso internacional de americanistas. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo, pp. 59–81.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1971. ‘Subjectivity in language’, in Problems in general linguistics, trans. Meek, M. E.. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, pp. 223–30. (First published in 1958 as ‘De la subjectivité dans le langage’, in Benveniste, É., Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 258–66.)Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and early Modern English’, in Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1984. ‘The language bioprogram hypothesis’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 212–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2004. ‘Subject clitics in English: A case of degrammaticalization?’, in Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 227–56.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2014. ‘If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions’, in Hundt, M. (ed.), Late Modern English syntax in context. Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–90.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2003. ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
DeGraff, M. 2005. ‘Morphology and word order in “creolization” and beyond’, in Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. S. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–372.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 2010. ‘Category change in English with and without structural change’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–28.Google Scholar
Detges, U. 2006. ‘From speaker to subject: The obligatorization of the Old French subject pronouns’, in Andersen, H. Leth, Birkelund, M. and Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard (eds.), La Linguistique au coeur: Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus. Mélanges offerts à Lene Schøsler à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 2002. ‘A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 103–20.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 2006. ‘Context types in grammaticalization as constructions’, Constructions SV1–9. http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/constructions/article/viewFile/24/29.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Wilkins, D. 2000. ‘In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages’, Language 76: 546–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Paulasto, H. 2008. English and Celtic in contact. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. ‘Syntax’, in Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E. J. and Yuasa, E. 2008. ‘A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization’, Journal of Linguistics 44: 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, L. 2011. ‘The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English NP: Identification and intensification’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. and Davidse, K. 2011. ‘The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change’, English Language and Linguistics 15: 251–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. M. 2012. ‘Negative cycles and grammaticalization’, in Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 570–79.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2002. ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?’, in Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P. and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What makes grammaticalization – a look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. and Kemenade, A. 2012. ‘The interaction between syntax, information structure, and prosody in word order change’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 803–21.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 2011. ‘Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics’, in Auer, P. and Pfänder, S. (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. [1993] 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd, rev. edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Knight, C. (eds.) 1998. Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. 2001. ‘Beyond “pathways” and ”unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization’, in Campbell, L. (ed.), Grammaticalization: A critical assessment, special issue of Language Sciences 23: 265–340.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages (Historisk-filologiske Meddeleser 1). Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. P. (eds.), Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.Google Scholar
Keller, R. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language, trans. Nerlich, B.. London: Routledge (first published in 1990 in German).Google Scholar
King, R. 2000. The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island case study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Linguistic universals and linguistic change’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 171–202.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2012. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. 2000. ‘Syntax without natural selection: How compositionality emerges from vocabulary in a population of learners’, in Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Hurford, J. R. (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language: Social function and the origins of linguistic form. Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–23.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2009. ‘“A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon”: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions’, in Helmbrecht, J., Nishina, Y., Shin, Y.-M., Skopeteas, S. and Verhoeven, E. (eds.), Form and function in language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 329–46.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 2008. ‘Information structure and grammaticalization’, in Seoane, E. and López-Couso, M. J. (eds., in collaboration with Fanego, T.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 207–29.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, M. J. 2010. ‘Subjectification and intersubjectification’, in Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Historical pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 127–63.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. [1912] 1958. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, in Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion, pp. 130–48. (Originally published in Scientia (Rivista di scienza) XXII, 1912.)Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.) 2012. The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oliveira, M. 2000. ‘The pronominal subject in Italian and Brazilian Portuguese’, in Kato, M. A. and Negrão, E. V. (eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt a. M.: Vervuert, pp. 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. L. 2012. The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. and Bloom, P. 1990. ‘Natural language and natural selection’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rhee, S. 2008. ‘Through a borrowed mouth: Reported speech and subjectification in Korean’, in Sutcliffe, P., Stanford, L. and Lommel, A. (eds.), LACUS forum 34: Speech and beyond, pp. 202–10. Available online at www.lacus.org/volumes/34/217_rhee_s.pdf.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. and Givón, T. (eds.) 2009. Syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112–71.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. 2012. ‘Stress clash and word order changes in the left periphery in Old and Middle English’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 873–83.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. 1988. ‘Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching’, in Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. and Singmaster, H. (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 389–405.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. ‘Dialogic contexts as motivation for syntactic change’, in Cloutier, R. A., Hamilton-Brehm, A. M. and Kretzschmar, W. (eds.), Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 11–27.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2012. ‘The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes’, in Kytö, M. (ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 221–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and König, E. 1991. ‘The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited’, in Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyk, P. n.d. (c. 1765) Nieuwe en nooit bevoorens geziene onderwyzinge in het Bastert Engels, of Neeger Engels, zoo als het zelve in de Hollandsze Colonien gebruikt word. Amsterdam: Jacobus van Egmont.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. 2012. ‘On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies’, in Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L. and Mortelmans, T. (eds., in collaboration with Cornillie, B., Cuyckens, H. and Leuschner, T.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. and Detges, U. 2008. ‘Syntactic change from within and without syntax: A usage-based approach’, in Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. R. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.) 2013. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winford, D. and Migge, B. 2007. ‘Substrate influence on the emergence of the TMA systems of the Surinamese Creoles’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 22: 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.) 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. D. 2000. ‘Internal and external forces in language change’, Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×