Article published in:Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change
Edited by Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Mengden
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69] 2014
► pp. 23–48
Does innovation need reanalysis?
Syntactic reanalysis has been claimed to be the only mechanism capable of explaining syntactic change. However, the concept of syntactic reanalysis is flawed. It insufficiently accommodates gradience in synchronic grammar and in language change, and depends too heavily on ambiguity as a cause of change. Alternative mechanisms exist to account for innovation that do not suffer from these problems. At the same time, the problem of explaining syntactic innovations is partly tied to models of language that overstate the role of syntax. Part of the problem therefore disappears under different theoretical starting assumptions.
Published online: 10 July 2014
Bybee, J. & McClelland, J.L.
De Clerck, B.
De Smet, H. & Van de Velde, F.
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M.
Evans, N. & Levinson, S.C.
Harris, A.C. & Campbell, L.
Hay, J.B. & Baayen, R.H.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F.
Kortmann, B. & König, E.
Torres Cacoullos, R.
Forthcoming). Gradual loss of analyzability: Diachronic priming effects. In A. Adli, M. García García & G. Kaufman (Eds.) System, usage and society Berlin Mouton de Gruyter
Traugott, E.C. & König, E.
Traugott, E.C. & Trousdale, G.
Cited by 4 other publications
Blanco-Suárez, Zeltia & Mario Serrano-Losada
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten & Lene Schøsler
Larrivée, Pierre & Amel Kallel
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2021. 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.