Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T11:53:28.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arguments from language change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Elizabeth Closs Traugott  and
Henry Smith
Elizabeth Closs Traugott
Affiliation:
Departments of Linguistics and English, Building 100, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2150, USA.
Henry Smith
Affiliation:
Yale Law School, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , September 1993 , pp. 431 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Lg. 49 765–793.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. (1986). A note on English impersonals. JL. 22 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1924). Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: the Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Curme, G. (1922). A grammar of the German language. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dal, I. (1966). Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage, 3rd edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1990). The Old English impersonals revived. In Adamson, S. V., Law, V., Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds.) Papers from the fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. & Van Der Leek, F. C. (1983). The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. JL. 19 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. & van der Leek, F. C. (1987). A ‘case’ for the Old English impersonal. In Koopman, W., van der Leek, F. C., Fischer, O. & Eaton, R. (eds.) Explanation and linguistic change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 79–120.Google Scholar
Halldórsson, H. (1982). Um méranir: Drög aö samtímalegri og sögulegri athugun [On using mér: an attempt at a synchronic and diachronic study]. Islenskt Mál og Almenn Málfræôi. 4 159–189.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1964). Phonology in generative grammar. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.) The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. 334–352.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1991). Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Mouton: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds.) (1981). Explanation in linguistics: the logical problem of acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. van. (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1965). Phonological change. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982 [1974]). Remarks on analogical change. In Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982 [1978]). Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. In Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, R. (1974). Word order: Dutch children and their mothers. Publikaties van her Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 9, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English: periphrastic do. In Fasold, R. W. & Schiffrin, D. (eds.) Language change and variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1982). Thoughts on grammaticalization. a programmatic sketch, vol. I (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48). Cologne: Universität zu Köln. Institut für Sprach-wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1989). The child's trigger experience; degree-ø learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 12 321–334 (target article), 12. 334–364 (peer commentary), 12. 364–375 (author's response).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic variation and change: on the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Paolillo, J. C. (1992). Functional articulation in diglossia: a case study of grammatical and social correspondences in Sinhala. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Paul, H. (1920). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn.Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. & Brown, P. (1976). The origins of syntax in discourse: a case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Lg. 52 631–666.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In MacNamara, J. (ed.) Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press. 185–214.Google Scholar
Smith, H. (1992). Restrictiveness in case theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. (Forthcoming, Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, A. (1982). Pagufallssyki [Dative sickness]. Islenskt Mál og Almenn Málfræôi. 4 19–62.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1973). Le changement linguistique et sa relation à l'acquisition de la langue maternelle. Langages. 32 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.) (1991). Approaches to grammaticalization. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Warner, A. R. (1990). Reworking the history of the English auxiliaries. In Adamson, S. V., Law, V., Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds.) Papers from the fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.) Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–189.Google Scholar