Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T20:53:06.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psycho-historical linguistics: its context and potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

MARGARET E. WINTERS
MARGARET E. WINTERS*
Affiliation:
862 University Place, Grosse Pointe, MI 48230, USAmewinters@wayne.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historical linguistics is a field that, perhaps more than other branches of linguistics, can be said to exhibit a certain conservatism. To be clear, this term is not meant in any traditional political sense. Rather it is meant to capture the notion that, as a discipline, diachronic studies seem to accept and build on previous theories and empirical findings to a greater extent than do most synchronic subdisciplines. This may be because data are comparatively rare and hard to come by. One result of this scarcity is that, once analyzed, there are fewer opportunities for reanalysis predicated on new data. There are, of course, occasions when more or less radical proposals are brought forward subsequently, which result in debates of the kind which are much more common in synchronic syntax, say, or phonology. The reconstruction of the Indo-European consonant system (Beekes 1995: 132–4 provides a summary), for example, continues to be debated almost two hundred years after it was first proposed.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 413 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartoli, Matteo. 1925. Introduzione alla neolinguistica. Geneva: Olschki.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christy, T. Craig. 1983. Uniformitarianism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic reconstruction: An introduction to theory and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.). 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Joseph, Brian D.. 2003. On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1990. Sprachwandel: von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1951. Proto-Indo-European phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press and the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1964 [1903]. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1967 [1908]. The Indo-European dialects, trans. Rosenberg, S. N.. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljiana, Paesani, Kate, Casielles, Eugenia & Barton, Ellen (eds.). 2006. The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1996. Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 2010. On construals and vantages. Language Sciences 32, 335–46.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. & Nathan, Geoffrey S.. 1992. First he called her a philologist and then she insulted him. In Brentari, D., Larson, Gary N. & MacLeod, Lynn A. (eds.), The joy of grammar: A festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley, 351–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar