Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:18:00.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of negation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

William Croft
William Croft
Affiliation:
Program in Linguistics, 1076 Frieze Building, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1285. USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently, linguists have discovered (or, more accurately, rediscovered) the role that historical linguistics can legitimately play in providing explanations for the facts of synchronic language types. Greater awareness of synchronic variability and its source in historical changes in progress has focused attention on the concept of a language as a system not of static structures, but of interacting processes which the individual speaker becomes involved in as he/she acquires the language and enters the language community (Weinreich, Labov & Herzog, 1968). These processes are hypothesized to be universal, in that they may occur in any language family at any time period (though the initial actuation of a change is still a riddle, ibid. 102).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

REFERENCES

Asher, R. E. (1985). Tamil. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. (1968). Mutations of linguistic categories. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 83–94.Google Scholar
Bernini, G. (1987). Attempting the reconstruction of negative patterns in PIE. In Ramal, A. G., Carruba, O. & Bernini, G. (eds), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, W. (1957). The Karok language. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 13.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bright, W. & Ramanujan, A. K. (1964). Sociolinguistic variation and language change. In Lunt, H. (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 1107–1112.Google Scholar
Bruce, R. (1970). Cantonese. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. (Typological Studies in Language, 9.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. and Dahl, O. (1989). The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchward, C. M. (1953). Tongan grammar. Nuku'alofa, Tonga: Taulua Press.Google Scholar
Cowell, M. W. (1964). A reference grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, J. (1981). Kobon. (Lingua Descriptive Studies, 3). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dayley, J. P. (1985). Tzutujil grammar. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 107.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
England, N. (1983). A grammar of Mam, a Mayan language. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. L. & Lodge, G. (1895). Latin grammar. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Synchronic and diachronic universals in phonology. Lg 42. 508–517.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1969). Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Puhvel, J. (ed.), Substance and structure of language. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. 147–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1978). Diachrony, synchrony and language universals. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds), Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 61–92.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1980). Circumfixes and typological change. In Traugott, E., Labrum, R. & Shepherd, S., Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 233–241.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1988). Incorporation, parallelism and focus. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds), Studies in syntactic typology (Typological Studies in Language, 17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. (1978). The evolution of French syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (1981). Basic materials in Mara: grammar, texts and dictionary. (Pacific Linguistics, C60.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (1984). Functional grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Reh, M. (1984). Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Traugott, E. C. (to appear). Aspects of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1986). Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. P. (1981). The Kanuri language: a reference grammar. Madison: University of Wisconsin African Studies Program.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1958). Typological studies and their contribution to historical and comparative linguistics. In Eva, Sivertsen et al. , (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists. Oslo: Oslo University Press. 17–25.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. T. (1977). Yapese reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Katili, A. A. (1978). Kenangan (‘Recollections’). In Wolff, J. (ed.), Indonesian readings. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1945–1949). La nature des procès dits ‘analogiques’. Acta Linguistica 5. 15–37.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1982). Thoughts on grammaticalization: a programmatic sketch, Vol. I. (Arbeiten der Kölner Universalien-Projekts, 48.) Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20. 303–318.Google Scholar
Leslau, W. (1968). Amharic textbook. Weisbaden: Otto Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F. (1983). A grammar of Manam. (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication, 18.) Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Mańczak, W. (1958). Tendances générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 7. 298–325, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, J. A. (1973). The grammar of Lahu. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 75.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. (1984). Fula syntax and verbal morphology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. (1921 [1912]). L'évolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Klincksieck. 130–148. [Originally Scientia 12/26.6, 1912.]Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Lg 60. 847–894.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. (1984). Wintu grammar. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 94.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pulkina, I. & Zaxava-Nekrasova, E. (n.d.) Russian. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Rood, D. & Taylor, A. (1976). Beginning Lakhota, Vol. 1. Boulder: University of Colorado Lakhota Project.Google Scholar
Rowlands, E. C. (1959). A grammar of Gambian Mandinka. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. & Otanes, F. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schwegler, A. (1983). Predicate negation and word-order change: a problem of multiple causation. Lingua 61. 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwegler, A. (1988). Word-order changes in predicate negation strategies in Romance languages. Diachronica 5. 21–58.Google Scholar
Smith, K. D. (1979). Sedang grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, B50.) Canberra: Australian National University Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies.Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (1975). Woleaian reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1985a). Conditional markers. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. (Typological Studies in Language 6.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 289–307.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1985b). From opposition to iteration: a study in semantic change. Studies in Language 9. 231–241.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1990). From less to more situated in language: the unidirectionality of semantic change. In Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Sylvia, Adamson et al. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 497–517.Google 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. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–195.Google Scholar
Whitney, A. H. (1944). Colloquial Hungarian. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar