Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 63–94

Analyzing language change through a formalist framework

| University of Edinburgh | LMU Munich
| University of Edinburgh | LMU Munich
This article serves as a case study on using formal morphological models to analyze systematic language change processes in inflectional morphology. By drawing on data from four Germanic varieties at two points in time (Old Swedish, Övdalian, Old High German and Visperterminen Alemannic) and applying the concepts of paradigm linkage theory to them, we are able to exemplarily monitor and model changes concerning case syncretism in nominal inflection in a way that is more differentiated than previous analyses. Thus, while the pure empirical results on Germanic morphology already are revealing by themselves, we also provide both a diachronic extension to formal morphology as well as finer granularity and appropriateness of description to historical linguistics as a whole.
Article outline
  • 1.Motivation and overview
  • 2.Theory: Formal inflectional models
  • 3.Synchronic and diachronic analysis
    • 3.1Traditional inflection classes
    • 3.2Content paradigms
    • 3.3Realized paradigms
    • 3.4Form paradigms
  • 4.Summary
  • 5.Outlook
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 27 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.207.03bae
References (21)
References
Åkerberg, Bengt. 2012. Älvdalsk grammatik. Under medverkan av Gunnar Nyström. Mora: Ulum Dalska.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 201–223. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baechler, Raffaela & Pröll, Simon. 2018. Loss and preservation of case in Germanic non-standard varieties. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1), 113: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik: Laut- und Formenlehre, Vol. 1, 15th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 1999. Die skandinavischen Sprachen im Überblick, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2006. The resilient dative and other remarkable cases in Scandinavian vernaculars. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59: 56–75.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan. 2012. Wohin steuern Korpora die Historische Sprachwissenschaft? Überlegungen am Beispiel des ʻNeuhochdeutschenʼ. In Historische Sprachwissenschaft: Erkenntnisinteressen, Grundlagenprobleme, Desiderate, Péter Maitz (ed.), 201–225. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eyþórsson, Þórhallur, Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Laake, Signe & Åfarli, Tor A. 2012. Dative case in Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese: Preservation and nonpreservation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35: 219–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garbacz, Piotr. 2010. Word Order in Övdalian: A Study in Variation and Change. PhD dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Levander, Lars. 1909. Älvdalsmålet i Dalarna: Ordböjning ock syntax. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1904. Altschwedische Grammatik mit Einschluss des Altgutnischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pröll, Simon & Kleiner, Stefan. 2016. Silbengrenzen im Gebrauchsstandard: Empirie, Theorie und Typologie. Deutsche Sprache 44(3): 193–213.Google Scholar
Seiler, Guido. 2003. Präpositionale Dativmarkierung im Oberdeutschen. Suttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2004. Morphology: An overview of central concepts. In Projecting Morphology, Louisa Sadler & Andrew Spencer (eds), 67–109. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms. Content and Form at the Syntax-morphology Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2015. The morphological expression of case in Övdalian. In Studies in Övdalian Morphology and Syntax: New Research on a Lesser-known Scandinavian Language [Linguistics Today 221], Kristine Bentzen, Henrik Rosenkvist, & Janne Bondi Johannessen (eds), 177–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wipf, Elisa. 1910. Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Frauenfeld: Huber.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Giménez García, Roser, Sheila Queralt & F. Xavier Moreno Vila
2023. Chapter 11. Variation of deontic constructions in spoken Catalan. In Free Variation in Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 234], ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.