Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions
Edited by Svenja Kranich and Tine Breban
[Studies in Language Companion Series 218] 2021
► pp. 1–18

Lost in Change

Introduction

editor
| University of Bonn
| University of Manchester
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studying loss: Hypotheses and generalizations
    • 2.1Data and methods for studying loss
    • 2.2Modelling loss: Classifications and theories
    • 2.3The process of loss
    • 2.4Causes and motivations for loss
    • 2.5Potential universals
  • 3.Summaries of the contributions in this volume
    • PART I – Modelling loss: Description, theory and method
    • PART II – Motivations and explanations for loss: Language-internal and external factors
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
Published online: 16 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.218.int
References (48)
References
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2014. The decline of the be-perfect, linguistic relativity, and grammar writing in the nineteenth century. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 13–27. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. & Cable, Thomas. 1993. A History of the English Language, 4th edn. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2015. Hidden complexity - The neglected side of complexity and its implications. Linguistics Vanguard 1: 177–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borchers, Dörte. 2008. A Grammar of Sunwar. Descriptive Grammar, Paradigms, Texts and Glossary [Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region 5.7]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A General and Unified Theory of the Language Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2003. Gender Shifts in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dolberg, Florian. 2019. Agreement in Language Contact. Gender Development in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. [Studies in Language Companion Series 208]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1988. Notes on the structure of the Sunwari transitive verb. Linguistics in the Tibeto-Burman Area 11 (2): 62–92.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David W. Lightfoot (ed.), 88–106. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics37 (6): 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and Down the Cline. The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon(eds), 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change. The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Kememade, Ans. 2012. Rethinking the loss of verb second. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott(eds), 1182–1199. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Gast, Volker. 2015. Explicitness of epistemic modal marking. Recent changes in British and American English. In Thinking Modally: English and Contrastive Studies on Modality, Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla, Carmen Maíz, Elena Domínguez & Maria Victoria Martín de la Rosa(eds), 3–22. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, Katharine Beals(ed.), 180–201. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Taylor, Ann & Ringe, Donald. 2000. The Middle English verb-second contsraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In Textual Parameters in Older Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory “https://www.benjamins.com/catalog/cilt” 195], Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen & Lene Schøsler(eds), 353–391. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In English Modality. Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera(eds), 95–115. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leung, Alex Ho-Cheong & van der Wurff, Wim.. 2018. Anaphoric reference in Early Modern English: The case of said and same. In The Noun Phrase in English. Past and Present [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 246], Alex Ho-Cheong Leung & Wim van der Wurff (eds), 143–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot David W. 2002. Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth Century English. History, Variation, and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möhlig-Falke, Ruth. 2012. The Early English Impersonal Construction. An Analysis of Verbal and Constructional Meaning. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östör, Ákos. 1982. Terms of address and Hungarian society. Language Sciences 4 (1): 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapacha, Lal. 2005. A Descriptive Grammar of Kirānti-Kõits. PhD dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Rudnicka, Karolina. 2018. Variation of sentence length across time and genre: Influence on the syntactic usage in English. In Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 85], Richard Jason Whitt(ed.), 219–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1992. Language decay and contact-induced change: Similarities and differences. In Language Death. Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, Matthias Brenzinger(ed.), 7–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1994. Language Contact and Change. Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language76 (4): 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott(eds), 654–665. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sara G. & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tichý, Ondřej. 2018Lexical obsolescence and loss in English: 1700–2000. In Applications of Pattern-Driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics, [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 82], Joanna Kopaczyk & Jukka Tyrkkö(eds), 81–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li(ed.), 141–177. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme(eds). 2010. Gradualness, Gradience, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wahl, Alexander & Gries, Stefan T. 2020. Computational extraction of formulaic sequences from corpora: Two case studies of a new extraction algorithm. In Computational Phraseology [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 24], Gloria Corpas Pastor & Jean-Pierre Colson(eds), 84–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Kaplan, Abby & Jackson, Scott. 2013. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128 (2): 179–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. New York NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Directions of Historical Linguistics, Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel(eds), 95–188. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar