Cover not available
Part of
The Sociolinguistics of Grammar
Edited by Tor A. Åfarli and Brit Mæhlum
[Studies in Language Companion Series 154] 2014
► pp. 37–66

Syntactic change

Between universal grammar and fuzzy grammar

Two diametrically opposed positions on syntactic change have wide currency in the literature. The first is the classical position of mainstream formal linguistics. In this view, UG-based strategies lead to a dramatically rapid cascade of seemingly unrelated diachronic changes. The second view has been developed primarily in the context of functional linguistics and associated statistical approaches. In this way of looking at things, diachronic change is ‘fuzzy’, in the sense that syntactic categories and constructions undergo a gradual evolution. In this paper I argue that neither position is correct. Syntactic change is discrete and abrupt, as is maintained by most formal syntacticians. However, we must abandon the view that such change can be interpreted in terms of UG-provided parameters or cues.
Published online: 16 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.154.03new
References (75)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2001. Verb types, non-canonically marked arguments, and grammatical relations: A Tariana perspective. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 177–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amritavalli, Rita. 2004. Experiencer datives in Kannada. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol.1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Carl Lee. 1991. The syntax of English not: The limits of core grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 387–429.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar . New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata 2004. Preface. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), ix–xii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiences in the Himalayas. In Non-nominative subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 77–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. To appear. Periphrasis as syntactic exponence. In Patterns in Paradigms , Farrell Ackerman, James P. Blevins & G.S. Stump (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. Approaching parameters from below. In Biolinguistic Approaches to Language Evolution and Variation , Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds), 205–221. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages, Vol. 13. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. & Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 373–422.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D., Rivero, Maria-Luisa & Stephens, Janig. 1996. Long head movement in Breton. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages , Robert D. Borsley & Ian Roberts (eds), 53–74. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Churchward, Clerk Maxwell. 1953. Tongan Grammar . London: OUP.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2004. Oblique-case subjects in Tsez. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 113–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen. 2012. The Emergence of Meaning . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1995. Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71: 490–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver 9–13 August 1999 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215], Laurel Brinton (ed.), 119–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at ICCG2: Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki.
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985. Hixkaryana and Linguistic Typology . Arlington TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 1999. Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1991. SVO languages and the OV: VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27: 443–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1986. Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In A Festschrift for Sol Saporta , Michael Brame, Heles Contreras & Frederick J. Newmeyer (eds), 93–131. Seattle WA: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1992. The phrase structure of English negation. Linguistic Review 9: 109–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fan, Xianlong. 2008. A changing target language: Trends in American English as viewed from the EFL perspective of China. English Today 96: 34–41.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Gary Martin. 1987. A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Pro-drop Parameter. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46 Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Understanding Morphology . London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1995. Argument-predicate structure in grammar and performance: A comparison of English and German. In Insights in Germanic Linguistics I, Irmegard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds), 127–144. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 2001. Non-canonically marked A/S in Imbabura Quechua. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 149–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2003. Yes/no questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English and Finnish. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Stylistic fronting. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax , Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 530–563. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2010. Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax . Cambridge M: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Movement and Silence . Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2000. The Grammar of Negation: A Constraint-based Approach . Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & König, Ekkehard. 1992. Categorial reanalysis: The case of deverbal prepositions. Linguistics 30: 671–697. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Papers from the 30th Regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory , Katharine Beals, Jeanette Denot, Robert Knippen, Lynette Melnar, Hisami Suzuki & Erica Zeinfeld (eds), 180–201. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Perspectives on Historical Linguistics , Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 17–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1993. Why UG needs a learning theory: Triggering verb movement. In Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives , Charles Jones (ed.), 190–214. London: Longman. Reprinted in Battye, Adrian & Roberts, Ian (eds). 1995. Clause Structure and Languages Change, 131–152. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. How New Languages Emerge . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. & Westergaard, Marit. 2007. Language acquisition and language change: Interrelationships. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 396–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mistry, P.J. 2004. Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Negation and modularity. In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn [Studies in Language Companion Series 80], Betty Birner & Gregory Ward (eds), 247–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki 2001. Non-canonically marked A/S in Bengali. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds), 113–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Trevor. 1987. Language in Mind and Language in Society . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1880/1920. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte . Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description . Vol. I: Clause Structure , Timothy Shopen (ed.), 197–242. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1993. The distribution and syntax of Old English adverbs. Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 2012. Das grammatische Raritätenkabinett . <[URL]>
Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. Violations of the wh-island constraint in Italian and the subjacency condition. In Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics , Colette Dubuisson, David Lightfoot & Yves Charles Morin (eds), 155–190. Montreal: L'association linguistique de Montreal. Reprinted in Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax, 49–76 Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French . Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 2007. Diachronic Syntax . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2010. How synchronic gradience makes sense in the light of language change (and vice-versa). In Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 129–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2005. Verbal person marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures , Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 414–417. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2001. The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan L. Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 361–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–143.Google Scholar
Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1976. Dative subjects, rule government, and relational grammar. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 6: 130–151.Google Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, & Bhaskararao, Peri. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in Telugu. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 161–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization: How do they interesct? In Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1984. Subject and non-subject asymmetries in the relativization of embedded NPs. In Sentential Complementation , Wim De Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds), 257–269. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit. 2009. Many small catastrophes: Gradualism in microparametric perspective. In Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory , Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds), 76–90. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics, or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 451–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Denis, Derek
2017. The Development ofAnd Stuffin Canadian English: A Longitudinal Study of Apparent Grammaticalization. Journal of English Linguistics 45:2 ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
D. M. Smith, Andrew, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit
2015. Introduction. In New Directions in Grammaticalization Research [Studies in Language Companion Series, 166], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2014. La réanalyse syntaxique et le conflit formaliste-fonctionnaliste en linguistique. Langages N° 196:4 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.