Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:51:10.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Anthony S. Kroch
Anthony S. Kroch
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When one form replaces another over time in a changing language, the new form does not occur equally often in all linguistic contexts. Linguists have generally assumed that those contexts in which the new form is more common are those in which the form first appears and in which it advances most rapidly. However, evidence from several linguistic changes (most importantly the rise of the periphrastic auxiliary do in late Middle English) shows that the general assumption is false. Instead, at least for syntactic cases, change seems to proceed at the same rate in all contexts. Contexts change together because they are merely surface manifestations of a single underlying change in grammar. Differences in frequency of use of a new form across contexts reflect functional and stylistic factors, which are constant across time and independent of grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , October 1989, pp. 199 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, Marianne Patalino. (1987a) From Old French to the theory of Pro-drop. NLLT 5:1–32.Google Scholar
Adams, Marianne Patalino. (1987b) Old French, null subjects, and verb second phenomena. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John & Nelson, Forrest. (1984). Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G., et al. (1983). A law of change in language. In Brainard, B. (ed.), Historical linguistics. Bochum, FRG: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. 104–115.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn & Kroch, Anthony. (1989). The isolability of syntactic processing. In Carlson, G. & Tanenhaus, M. (eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing. Boston: Kluwer. 157–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. (1985). The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, Roger et al. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 45–60.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. (1953). The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. (1978). The complex v–v' in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9:151–175.Google Scholar
Engblom, W. (1938). On the origin and early development of the auxiliary do. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Carmen. (1985). Application de méthodes quantitatives en diachronie: l'inversion du sujet en français. M.A. thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul & Junker, Marie-Odile. (1988). Remarques sur les sujets nul en subordonnées en ancien et en moyen français. In Hirschbühler, Paul & Rochette, Anne (eds.), Aspects de la syntaxe historique du français. Québec: Association Québécoise de Linguistique. 63–84.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, Paul & Rochette, Anne. (eds.). (1988). Aspects de la syntaxe historique du français. Québec: Association Québécoise de Linguistique.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. K. (1985). Processing of sentences with intrasentential code-switching. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L. & Zwicky, A. (eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. (1984). The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kottler, Barnet & Markman, Alan M. (1966). A concordance to five Middle English poems. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1982). Grammatical theory and the quantitative study of syntactic change. Paper presented at NWAVE 11,Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic “do.” In Fasold, Ralph (ed.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Myhill, John. (1982). Understanding “do.” In Tuite, K. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 18th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 282–294.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice & Heycock, Caroline. (1987). Bare infinitives and external arguments. In Blevins, J. & Carter, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst: Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 271–285.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1975a). The use of the present to explain the past. In Heilmann, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists. Bologna: Il Molino. 825–851.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1975b). What is a linguistic fact? Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1982). Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 17–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. (1988). Syntactic change. In Newmeyer, Frederick (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press. 303–323.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. (1989). The child's trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:321–334; commentary 334–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. (1952). A handbook of Middle English. Trans. by Walker, James A.. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, Shawn. (1985). To have and have got. Paper presented at NWAVE 14,Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Oliveira e Silva, Giselle. (1982). Estudo da regularidade na variação dos possessivos no português do Rio de Janeiro. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles & Sebeok, Thomas. (1954). Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49(4, part 2):1–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piotrovskaja, A. & Piotrovskij, R. (1974). Matematiceskie Modeli Diachronii i Tekstoobrazovanija. In Statistika Reci i Avtomaticeskij Analiz Teksta. Leningrad: Nauka. 361–400.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer & Holmberg, Anders. (1990). The role of AGR and finiteness in some European vo languages. Unpublished manuscript, University of Lund.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. (1989). Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of ip. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
Priestley, L. (1955). Reprise constructions in French. Archivum Linguisticum 7:1–28.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1984). Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional analysis. In White, S. J. & Teller, V. (eds.), Discourses in reading and linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. (Vol. 433). 213–225.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1988). Discourse analysis: A part of the study of linguistic competence. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (Vol. 2) Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications. New York: Cambridge University Press. 164–182.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. (1985). Agreement parameters and the development of the English modal auxiliaries. NLLT 3(1):21–58.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale & Sankoff, David. (1978). Advances in variable rule methodology. In Sankoff, David (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 57–69.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. (1979). An introduction to the historical study of English syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David & Poplack, Shana. (1981). A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in Linguistics 14:3–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. (1989). The generalization of the verb-second constraint in the history of Yiddish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1966). Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Spiess, Eliot. (1989). Genes in populations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan, et al. (1981). The encyclopedia of AUX. A study of cross-linguistic equivalence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. (1986). Syntactic variation and change: The case of do in questions in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 7(1):121–149.Google Scholar
Tatlock, John & Kennedy, Arthur. (1927). A concordance to the complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution.Google Scholar
Tukey, John. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Vance, Barbara. (1988). L'évolution de Pro-drop en français médiéval. In Hirschbühler, Paul & Rochette, Anne (eds.), Aspects de la syntaxe historique du français. Québec: Association Québécoise de Linguistique. 85–109.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. (1989). The diffusion and implementation of the category modal in Middle English. Paper presented at International Conference on Historical Linguistics IX,Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederick Th. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. (1982). Complementation in Middle English and methodology of historical syntax. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. (1983). Review of D. Lightfoot, Principles of diachronic syntax. Journal of Linguistics 19:187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. (ed.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–195.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (1983). Bilingual code switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14:520–536.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. (1989). The position of negative markers in Romance languages. Paper presented at the Generative Linguistics in the Old World Colloquium,Utrecht.Google Scholar