Cover not available
Part of
Reorganising Grammatical Variation: Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants
Edited by Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann and Mirjam Schmuck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 203] 2018
► pp. 1–16

Introduction

On the role of reorganisation in long-term variation and change and its theoretical implications

| University of Mainz
| University of Mainz
| University of Münster
Article outline
  • 1.Reorganising grammatical variation
  • 2.The reorganisation phenomena studied in this volume
  • 3.Insights: Grammatical variation reorganised
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 24 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.203.01dam
References (55)
References
Bergmann, Rolf & Nerius, Dieter. 1997. Die Entwicklung der Großschreibung im Deutschen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Birkmann, Thomas. 1987. Präteritopräsentia: Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, John L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70: 737–788.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2014. Fixing English. Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje. 2011. Konjugationsklassenwandel: Prinzipien des Ab-, Um- und Ausbaus verbalflexivischer Allomorphie in germanischen Sprachen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje, Nowak, Jessica & Schmuck, Mirjam. 2010. Strong verb paradigm leveling in four Germanic languages. A category frequency approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22(4): 341–365.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther & Seiler, Guido (eds). 2012. The Dialect Laboratory: Dialects as a Testing Ground for Theories of Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 128]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Grammatische Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase des Deutschen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000. Subtraction. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopetea (eds), 581–587. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas, Fleischer, Jürg & Seiler, Guido (eds). 2009. Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Robert P. 1999. Historische Syntax des Deutschen II: 1300–1750, 2nd edn. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Eitelmann, Matthias. 2016. Support for end-weight as a determinant of linguistic variation and change. Support Strategies in Language Variation and Change. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 20(3): 395–420.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004a. On the relation between gender and declension. A diachronic perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language 28(1): 51–82.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. A possible constraint on non-affixal inflection. Lingua 114: 59–75.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, Pérez Guerra, Javier & López-Couso, María José (eds). 2002. English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 223]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg & Simon, Horst J. (eds). 2013. Comparing Diachronies. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golston, Chris & Wiese, Richard. 1996. Zero morphology and constraint interaction: subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. Yearbook of Morphology 1995: 143–159.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holsinger, David & Houseman, Paul. 1999. Lenition in Hessian: Cluster reduction and ‘subtractive plurals’. Yearbook of Morphology 1998: 159–174.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Language Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 185–214. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Breban, Tine. 2018. Lost in Change: Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Constructions and Categories. Workshop at the 40th DGfS-Conference, Stuttgart, 7–9 March, 2018. <[URL]> (14 April 2018).
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do. In Language Change and Variation [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52], Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 132–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2003. Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 7–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian. 2008. Deklinationsklassen-Wandel. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith (eds). 2015. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds). 2016a. Support Strategies in Language Variation and Change. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 20(3).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Introduction. In Support Strategies in Language Variation and Change, Britta Mondorf & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds). Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 20(3): 383–393.Google Scholar
Nedergaard Thomsen, Ole (ed.). 2006. Competing Models of Linguistic Change. Evolution and Beyond [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 279]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2000. Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2008. Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 75(3): 282–330.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 1997. The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel & Van de Velde, Freek (eds). 2016. Exaptation and Language Change [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 336]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1920[1995]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn, 10th printing. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–182.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds). 2003. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds). 2009. One Language – Two Grammars: Grammatical Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Guido. 2007. Microvariation in LFG and OT. In Architectures, Rules and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan, Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling & Chris Manning (eds), 529–547. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. 2010. Exaptation in der Sprachwandeltheorie. Eine Begriffspräzisierung. In Prozesse sprachlicher Verstärkung. Typen formaler Resegmentierung und semantischer Remotivierung, Rüdiger Harnisch (ed.), 41–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. & Wiese, Heike. 2011. What are exceptions and what can be done about them? In Expecting the Unexpected. Exceptions in Grammar, Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds), 3–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1990. The Semantics of Syntactic Change. Aspects of the Evolution of ‘do’ in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna Maria. 2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5(2): 183–207.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58: 832–849.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 2001. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Heinemann, Sabine
2021. Hochfrequenz und Irregularität – zur Stammallomorphie bei (a)frz. al(l)er/(a)it. andare, (a)frz. venir/(a)it. venire und afrz. ester/(a)it. stare . Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 137:4 ► pp. 961 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 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.