Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Germanic Linguistics
  4. Volume 20 Issue 4
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 20 - Issue 4 - December 2008

Journal of Germanic Linguistics Volume 20 - Issue 4 -
On the cover
*

The work that led to this paper was carried out within a project also exploring categories such as affix and clitic, entitled “Germanic possessive -s: An empirical, historical, and theoretical study.” The project is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (United Kingdom), and we gratefully acknowledge their support. The comments by the two anonymous referees led to a number of improvements to this paper, and conversations with Ricardo Bermdez-Otero and John Payne clarified some specific issues. We are particu-larly grateful to Michael Barnes and Nigel Vincent, who generously took the time to read and comment on the whole paper in its draft version. We apologize for not having been able to take all of their comments into account.

Contents

ARTICLES

  • The Clitic-Affix Distinction, Historical Change, and Scandinavian Bound Definiteness Marking

  • Kersti Börjars, Pauline Harries
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 December 2008, pp. 289-350

  • In the literature on grammaticalization, it is generally assumed that there are two categories of bound elements, clitics and affixes, and that a development from the former to the latter is an example of gram-maticalization. Frequently, this development in form is assumed to be associated with a change in function. In this paper, we argue that a simple dichotomy between clitic and affix does not do justice to the variation found between bound elements, nor to the changes they undergo over time. We also argue that changes in form are not always accompanied by a change in function. We illustrate our discussion with the history and current distribution of definiteness marking in Scandinavian.*

REVIEWS