Abduction or Inertia? : The logic of syntactic change

Zitieren

Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Dateien Größe Format Anzeige

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

WALKDEN, George, 2010. Abduction or Inertia? : The logic of syntactic change. CAMling 2010 : Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research. Cambridge, 7. Dez 2010 - 8. Dez 2010. In: CUMMINS, Chris, ed., Chi-Hé ELDER, ed., Thomas GODARD, ed., Morgan MACLEOD, ed., Elaine SCHMIDT, ed., George WALKDEN, ed.. CAMling 2010 : Proceedings of the Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research. CAMling 2010 : Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research. Cambridge, 7. Dez 2010 - 8. Dez 2010. Cambridge:Cambridge Institute of Language Research (CILR), pp. 230-239

@inproceedings{Walkden2010Abduc-38994, title={Abduction or Inertia? : The logic of syntactic change}, year={2010}, address={Cambridge}, publisher={Cambridge Institute of Language Research (CILR)}, booktitle={CAMling 2010 : Proceedings of the Sixth Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research}, pages={230--239}, editor={Cummins, Chris and Elder, Chi-Hé and Godard, Thomas and Macleod, Morgan and Schmidt, Elaine and Walkden, George}, author={Walkden, George} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/38994"> <dcterms:issued>2010</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:title>Abduction or Inertia? : The logic of syntactic change</dcterms:title> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Two assumptions often considered principles of inquiry in historical generative syntax are that linguistic change is abductive (Andersen 1973) and that syntax is inert (Longobardi 2001). In this paper it is demonstrated that these two notions, if meaningfully interpreted, are not compatible: if we wish to develop a coherent theory of language acquisition and change, we must abandon one or the other. The conclusion reached is that that neither abduction nor inertia is a necessary or useful concept in diachronic syntax. I suggest that we should abandon both, instead treating syntactic change on its own terms.</dcterms:abstract> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/38994"/> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-05-22T11:19:08Z</dcterms:available> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-05-22T11:19:08Z</dc:date> <dc:creator>Walkden, George</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Walkden, George</dc:contributor> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Das Dokument erscheint in:

KOPS Suche


Stöbern

Mein Benutzerkonto