Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:56:55.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principles of methodology: a case study from the history of English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2014

SHERRYLYN BRANCHAW
SHERRYLYN BRANCHAW*
Affiliation:
1554 Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 102, Los Angeles, CA 90025, [email protected]
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
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 549 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank the ELL Review Editor Bas Aarts and two reviewers, Robert Fulk and Roger Lass, for providing feedback on my article, finding errors and suggesting improvements; Donka Minkova for proposing me as the reviewer of this book; Mariana Cirne for consultation on some points of the methodology of science; Robin Reid, Rachel Klippenstein and Matthew Chan for feedback on early drafts. Roger Lass's detailed and encouraging commentary on my article, including a reminder that he too has been writing for several decades on the importance of methodology, e.g. Lass 1980, was especially helpful.

References

Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90, 119–61.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2011. Norm vs variation in British English strong verbs: The case of past tense sang vs sung. English Language and Linguistics 15, 85–112.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krygier, Marcin. 1994. The disintegration of the English strong verb system. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 2003. Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1999. Phonology and morphology. In Roger Lass (ed.), Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3, 56–186.Google Scholar
LSJ. Liddell, Henry G. & Scott, Robert, with the assistance of Sir Henry Stuart Jones. 1996. A Greek–English lexicon: Revised and augmented throughout. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2, 175–220.Google Scholar
Núñez, Rafael E. & Sweetser, Eve. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30, 401–50.Google Scholar
OED. The Oxford English Dictionary. http://dictionary.oed.com.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1935. Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Verlag von Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2006. A linguistic history of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph & Wright, Elizabeth Mary. 1925. Old English grammar, 3rd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zadeh, Lofti A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338–53.Google Scholar