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
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- 19 The Actuation Problem
- 20 Inertia
- 21 Gradience and Gradualness vs Abruptness
- 22 Cyclicity
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
22 - Cyclicity
from Part IV - Major Issues and Themes
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
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- 19 The Actuation Problem
- 20 Inertia
- 21 Gradience and Gradualness vs Abruptness
- 22 Cyclicity
- 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. 467 - 488Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, M. 1987. ‘From Old French to the theory of Pro-drop’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bopp, F. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt-am-Main.Google Scholar
Butt, M. and Lahiri, A. 2013. ‘Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs’, Lingua 135: 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. ‘Approaching UG from below’, in Gärtner, H.-M. and Sauerland, U. (eds.), Interface + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. 1992. An introduction to historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, O. 2001. ‘Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere’, in Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 471–80.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 1975. ‘The transformational cycle in Dutch and German’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Franzén, T. 1939. Etude sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. [1891] 1901. Die Sprachwissenshaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Weigel (reprint Tübingen: Narr 1972).Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology’, Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. 1976. ‘Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 151–88.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1954. ‘A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language’, in Spencer, R. (ed.), Method and perspective in anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pp. 192–220.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1978. ‘How does a language acquire gender markers?’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 3. Stanford University Press, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar
Haas, M. 1946. ‘A grammatical sketch of Tunica’, in Hoijer, H. (ed.), Linguistic structures of native America. New York: Viking, pp. 337–66.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. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, M. and Traugott, E. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, W. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts.Google Scholar
Ingham, R. and Larrivée, P. (eds.) 2011. The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst (reprinted 1966).Google Scholar
Katz, A. 1996. ‘Cyclical grammaticalization and the cognitive link between pronoun and copula’, unpublished PhD thesis, Rice University.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2011. ‘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
Kiparsky, P. and Condoravdi, C. 2006. ‘Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle’, in Janse, M., Joseph, B. and Ralli, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of modern Greek dialects and linguistic theory. Mytilene: Doukas, pp. 172–97.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrivée, P. 2010. ‘The pragmatic motifs of the Jespersen Cycle: Default, activation, and the history of negation in French’, Lingua 120(9): 2240–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e stile 20(3): 303–18.Google Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1977. ‘A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 414–44.Google Scholar
Loprieno, A. 2001. ‘From Ancient Egyptian to Coptic’, in Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. [1912] 1921. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, in Champion, E. (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, pp.130–48 (reprinted 1958).Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2012. ‘Mechanisms of language change in a functional system: The recent semantic evolution of English future time expressions’, Journal of Historical Linguistics 2(1): 83–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. (eds.) 2012. Oxford handbook on historical English linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2009. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy, and semantic bleaching’, in Trousdale, G. and Traugott, E. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2008. ‘Where did late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy’, Studia Linguistica 62(3): 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2013. ‘The linguistic cycle and the language faculty’, Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. (ed.) 2016. Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.) 2013. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2013. ‘Quantity nouns and grammaticalisation: Language change and couple and pair’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1994. ‘La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs’, Travaux de Linguistique et Litterature 32: 131–47.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by