Chapter

Syntactic Change

D. Gary Miller

in Language Change and Linguistic Theory, Volume II

Published in print August 2010 | ISBN: 9780199583430
Published online January 2011 | e-ISBN: 9780191595288 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583430.003.0010
Syntactic Change

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Historical and Diachronic Linguistics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

Differences in syntactic projection result from changes in lexical features, e.g. by reanalysis. In West Greenlandic factives, subject‐to‐object raising was lost along with the Agree relation that accompanied the edge/EPP feature. Factives also figure prominently in the reanalysis of Latin quod ‘which; because’ to a complementizer ‘that’. Copular deontics originate as passives. In Latin and English, the nominative/accusative case ambiguity of neuters permitted reanalysis to active structures. With non‐neuters, the passive was retained in English and took the new passive infinitive. English preposition doubling (the teacher to whom I gave the book to) is a hypercorrection formalized as failure of copy‐remnant deletion. Split ergativity in Pašto and the Northern Group of Kurdish evolved from frequent use of the perfect passive with an agent phrase that had (quirky) subject properties since Old Persian. The predilection for nominalizations in the Eskimo‐Aleut family is responsible for several chronological layers of ergativity.

Keywords: syntactic projection; reanalysis; West Greenlandic; factives; hypercorrection; preposition doubling; Eskimo‐Aleut; ergativity

Chapter.  13995 words. 

Subjects: Historical and Diachronic Linguistics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.