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
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
2 - Degrammaticalization
from Part I - Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
By
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
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- 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. 28 - 48Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Allen, C. L. 2003. ‘Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English’, English Language and Linguistics 7: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 2006. ‘Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian’, Diachronica 23: 231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. 2008. ‘Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change’, in Eythórsson, Th. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, K. 1998. ‘From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: The curious case of Pennsylvania German wotte’, in Hogg, R. M. and van Bergen, L. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1995: Selected papers from the 12th International conference on historical linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. 1991. ‘Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications’, in Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 285–99.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2001. ‘What’s wrong with grammaticalization?’, Language Sciences 23: 113–61.Google Scholar
Doyle, A. 2002. ‘Yesterday’s affixes as today’s clitics’, in Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 67–81.CrossRefGoogle 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
Fischer, O., Norde, M. and Perridon, H. (eds.) 2004. Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. 2000. ‘Remarks on the de-grammaticalisation of infinitival to in present-day American English’, in Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. and Stein, D. (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–86.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22: 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2004. ‘On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization’, in Fischer, , Norde, and Perridon, (eds.), pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Hay, J. 2002. ‘From speech perception to morphology: Affix order revisited’, Language 78: 527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. and Plag, I. 2004. ‘What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 565–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2003. ‘On degrammaticalization’, in Blake, B. J. and Burridge, K. (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–79.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. 2001. ‘Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization’, Language Sciences 23: 265–340.CrossRefGoogle 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. 15–50.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1990. ‘How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution’, Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1988. ‘From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives’, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340–51.Google Scholar
Méndez Dosuna, J. 1997. ‘Fusion, fission and relevance in language change: De-univerbation in Greek morphology’, Studies in Language 21: 577–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H. 2007. ‘Exaptation, grammaticalization, and reanalysis’, California Linguistic Notes 32: 1–25.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 2001. ‘Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change’, Language Sciences 23: 231–64.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies’, in Stathi, K., Gehweiler, E. and König, E. (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–50.Google Scholar
Ohala, J.J. 1993. ‘The phonetics of sound change’, in Jones, C. (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. Longman: London, pp. 237–78.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 2000. ‘Morphological re-activation and phonological alternations: Evidence for voiceless restructuring in German’, in Lahiri, A. (ed.), Analogy, levelling, markedness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 171–91.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. 1997. ‘Whatever happened to the Middle English indefinite pronouns?’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 513–29.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Diachrony and cartography: Paths of grammaticalization and the clausal hierarchy’, in Brugè, L. et al. (eds.), Functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. VII. Oxford University Press, pp. 351–65.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, W. and Traugott, E. C. 1998. ‘Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization’, in Giacalone Ramat, A. and Hopper, P. J. (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–72.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change’, Language 65: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2000. ‘Verb movement in Slavonic conditionals’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 322–48.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2007. ‘Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization’, Linguistics 45: 271–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: Evidence from Slavonic’, in Stathi, K., Gehweiler, E. and König, E. (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–77.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2016. ‘Exaptation and degrammaticalization within an acquisition-based model of abductive reanalysis’, in Norde, M. and van de Velde, F. (eds.), Exaptation and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. 2004. ‘Redefining unidirectionality: Is there life after modality?’, in Fischer, , Norde, and Perridon, (eds.), 115–35.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by