Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:19:45.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paradigm economy: a rejoinder to Carstairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Martti Nyman
Martti Nyman
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki and University of Turku
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
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 501 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Andersen, H. (1980). Morphological change: towards a typology. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical morphology. The Hague: Mouton. 1–50.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. A. (1972). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baldi, P. (1983). Speech perception and grammatical rules in Latin. In Pinkster, H. (ed.), Latin linguistics and linguistic theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. (1975). Constraints on sound change. In Dahlstedt, K.-H. (ed.), The Nordic languages and linguistics. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 388–406.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. & Ringen, J. (1981). Teleology and the explanation of sound change. In Dressler, W. U. et al. (eds), Phonologica 1980. 57–68. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenshaft.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1983). Paradigm economy. JL 19. 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1984). Paradigm economy in Latin third-declension. TPhS. 117–137.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1985a). Paradigm economy in Latin nouns. In Fisiak J. (ed.), Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam:Benjamins and Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1985b). Review of Wurzel (1984). JL 21. 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. (1988). Paradigm economy: a reply to Nyman. JL 24. 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1985a). Morphology: the dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1985b). On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology. JL 21. 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eska, J. F. (1987). The language of the Latin inscriptions of Pompeii and the question of an Osean substratum. Glotta 65. 146–161.Google Scholar
Gaeng, P. A. (1977). A study on nominal infection in Latin inscriptions. A morpho-syntactic analysis. Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gaeng, P. A. (1983). Collapse and reorganization of the Latin nominal inflection as reflected in epigraphic sources. Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica.Google Scholar
Gaeng, P. A. (1985). On the survival of an archaic Latin case form in Italo- and Balkan-Romance. ICS 10. 295–302.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, R. (1979). Written and spoken language in Latin–Faliscan and Greek-Messapic. JIES 7. 149–175.Google Scholar
Hey, O. (1900). Ob civis servatos. ALG 11. 270–271.Google Scholar
Horn, W. (1921). Sprachkörper und Sprachfunktion. Leipzig: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1983). Causality in linguistic theory. London & Canberra; Croom Helm; Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1984). On the ‘rationslist’ conception of linguistic change. Diachronica 1. 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1986). Form–meaning isomorphism, or iconicity, in diachronic linguistics (and elsewhere). In Symposium on formalization in historical linguistics. Summaries. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR, Section of Social Sciences. 38–46.Google Scholar
Janson, T. (1979). Mechanisms of language change in Latin. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht & Cinnaminson: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). On sh*tting the door in Early Modern English: A reply to Professor Samuels. In Koopman, W. et al. (eds), Explanation and linguistic change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 251–255.Google Scholar
Leumann, M. (1977). Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1971). Derivational transparency as an occasional co-determinant of sound change: a new causal ingredient in the distribution of -c- and -z- in ancient Hispano-Romance. Romance Philology 25. 1–52.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1976a). Multi-conditioned sound change and the impact of morphology on phonology. Lg 52. 757–778.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1976b). In search of penultimate causes of language change: studies in the avoidance of /z/ in Proto-Spanish. in Luján, M. & Hensey, F. (eds), Current studies in Romance linguistics. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 27–36.Google Scholar
Mannheim, B. & Newfield, M. (1982). Iconicity in phonological change. In Ahlqvist A. (ed.). Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam:Benjamins. 211–222.Google Scholar
Moore, S. (1927). Loss of final -n in inflectional syllables of Middle English. Lg 3. 123–159.Google Scholar
Neue, F. & Wagener, C. (1902). Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, I: Das Substantivum. 3rd ed.Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Nyman, M. (1983). Review of Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical morphology. NJL 6. 129–156.Google Scholar
Nyman, M. (1987). Is the Paradigm Economy Principle relevant? JL 23. 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, M. (to appear). Latin -īs ‘Nom.Pl.’ as an Indo-European reflex. Mimeo.Google Scholar
O'Bryan, M. (1974). The interaction of phonological and morphological processes in historic change. Linguistics 137. 49–61.Google Scholar
Porzio Gernia, M. L. (1977). Interferenze tra struttura morfologica e struttura fonologica nella sillaba finale latina. SILTA 6. 113–140.Google Scholar
Rochet, B. (1974). A morphologically-determined sound change in Old French. Linguistics 135. 43–56.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. (1987). The status of the functional approach. In Koopman, W. et al. (eds), Explanation and linguistic change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 239–250.Google Scholar
Stephens, L. (1986). The shortening of final -o in Classical Latin: A study in multiple conditioning and lexical diffusion of sound change. IF 91. 236–258.Google Scholar
Strzelecki, L. (1949). Studia prosodiaca et metrica. Cracovie: Polska Akad. Umiejęt.Google Scholar
Tingdahl, G. C. (1916). Ändelsen -is i ackus. plur. hos de efteraugusteiska författerne. Diss. Göteborg: Eranos-Verlag. (German summary by F. Hartmann in Glotta 10 (1920), 254–255.)Google Scholar
Vachek, J. (1962). On the interplay of external and internal factors in the development of language. Lingua 11. 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar