Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T02:46:50.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diachronic syntax and learnability: free relatives in thirteenth-century Spanish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

María-Luisa Rivero
María-Luisa Rivero
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diachronic change emerges from the construction of grammars by successive generations of learners by exposure to primary data. Learners receive little information concerning what is ungrammatical in their language. To propose learnable systems, linguists should use positive data and not depend on negative information (the learnability criterion). Learnability is relevant to historical linguistics under the view that links diachronic change to grammar construction by the learner. This perspective is used to establish the system of two types of free relatives in thirteenth-century Spanish (quanto que vs. quanto-constructions), and the changes that led to the disappearance of the first type in later centuries.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 81 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

REFERENCES

Alex: Alexandre, Willis, (ed.). Manuscript, stanza and line.Google Scholar
Apo: Apollonio, Marden, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. Du: Berceo, Duelo, Dutton, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. Himno: Berceo, Himnos, Dutton, (ed.). Hymn, stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. Loor: Berceo, Loores, Dutton, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. Milg.: Berceo, Milagros, Dutton, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. S. Dom: Berceo, Santo Domingo, Dutton, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. Sig: Berceo, Signos, Dutton, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. S. Mil: Berceo, San Millán, Dutton, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
B. S. Or: Berceo, Santa Oria, Marden, (ed.). Stanza and line.Google Scholar
DLA: Documentos Lingüísticos, Aragón, Navarro, Tomás (ed.). Document and year.Google Scholar
DLE: Documentos Lingüísticos, España, Menéndez, Pidal (ed.). Document, year and area.Google Scholar
Por: Poridat, Kasten, (ed.). Page and line.Google Scholar
B. Primary sources Listed by author and/or title. Only materials used as the source of examples in the text appear. Documentos lingüísticos del Alto Aragón. Navarro, Tomás T. (ed.). Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Documentos lingüísticos de España, Menéndez, Pidal R. (ed.). Revista de Filología Española, Anejo 84. Madrid: CSIC, 1966 reprint.Google Scholar
Gonzalo de, Berceo. El duelo de la Virgen (c. 1236). Los himnos (c. 1236). Los loores de Nuestra Señora (1236). Los signos del juicio final (1236–1246), Dutton, B. (ed.). London: Tamesis, 1975.Google Scholar
Gonzalo de, Berceo. La vida de Santo Domingo de Silos (c. 1236), Dutton, B. (ed.). London: Tamesis, 1978.Google Scholar
Gonzalo de, Berceo. La vida de San Millán de Cogolla (c. 1230), Dutton, B. (ed.). London: Tamesis, 1967.Google Scholar
Gonzalo de, Berceo. Los Milagros de Nuestra Señora (1246–1252), Dutton, B. (ed.). London: Tamesis, 1971.Google Scholar
Gonzalo de, Berceo. Vida de Santa Oria (c. 1250), Marden, C. (ed.). In Cuatro poemas de Berceo. Revista de Filología Española, Anejo IX, Madrid, 1928.Google Scholar
El libro de Alexandre (c. 1250), Willis, R. S. (ed.). Elliott Monographs in the Romance languages and literatures. New York: Kraus Reprint, 1965.Google Scholar
El libro de Apollonio (c. 1250), Marden, C. (ed.). Elliott Monographs in the Romance languages and literatures. New York: Kraus Reprint, 1965.Google Scholar
Poridat de las Poridades (c. 1250), Kasten, A. (ed.). Madrid: CSIC, 1957.Google Scholar
C. Secondary Sources Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Lg 49. 765–793.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1974). Towards a typology of change: bifurcating changes and binary relations. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds), Historical linguistics 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979a). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. LIn 10. 533–582.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979b). Remarks on complementizers, filters and learnability. Austin: University of Texas unpublished Ms.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. J. (eds) (1981). The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J. (1978). The syntax of free relatives in English. LIn 9. 331–391.Google Scholar
Brown, R., Cazden, C. B. & Bellugi, U. (1969). The child’s grammar from I to III. In Hill, P. (ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Volume 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On Wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. LIn 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Corominas, J. (1971). Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Cuervo, R. J. (1953). Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Fassi, Fehri (1980). Some complement phenomena in Arabic, Lexical Grammar, the complementizer Phrase Hypothesis and the Non-Accessibility Condition. Unpublished Ms., University of Rabat, Morocco.Google Scholar
Fernández, Ramírez S. (1951). Gramática española. Madrid: Revista de Occidente.Google Scholar
García de Diego, V. (1970). Gramática histórica española, 3rd edn.Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Gessner, E. (1894). Das spanische Relativ- und Interrogativpronomen. ZRPh 18. 449–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1977). English wh-constructions and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Groos, A. & van Riemsdijk, H. (1979) (1981). Matching effects in free relatives: a parameter of core grammar. In Belletti, A et al. (eds), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 Glow conference. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 1981.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. (1978). The syntax and semantics of Wh-constructions. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club].Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M. L. (1981 a). Catalan restrictive relatives: core and periphery. Lg 57. 591–625.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M. L. (1981 b). A unified analysis of matching and non-matching free relatives in Catalan. NELS II.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M. L. (1982). Aspects of the evolution of relative clauses in Romance. In Ahlqvist, A (ed.), Papers from the 5th ICHL. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M. L. (1983). Remarks on free relatives and matching phenomena. LIn 14. 505–520.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). Ẍ-syntax: a study of phrase-structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1980). On some phonologically-null elements in syntax. Unpublished dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1976). French relative ‘que’.. In Luján, M. & Hensey, F. (eds), Current studies in Romance linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Keniston, H. (1937). The syntax of Castilian prose. The sixteenth century. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S. Y. (1968). English relativization and certain related problems. Lg 44. 244–266.Google Scholar
Lapesa, R. (1966). El artículo como antecedente del relativo. In Homenaje a van Goor Zonen. Utrecht: Institute of Spanish, Portuguese, and Iberoamerican Studies.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1981). Learnability, restrictiveness, and the evaluation metric. In Baker, & McCarthy, (1981).Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menéndez, Pidal R. (1964–1969). Cantar de mio Cid: texto, gramática y vocabulario, 3 vols, 4th edn.Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Plann, S. (1982). Indirect questions in Spanish. LIn 13. 297–312.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1979 (1981)). A second COMP position. In Belletti, A. et al. (eds), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 Glow Conference. Pisa: Sculoa Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (1980a). On left-dislocation and topicalization in Spanish. LIn II. 363–393.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (1980b). That-relatives and deletion in COMP in Spanish. NELS 10.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (1982). Las relativas restrictivas con que. NRFH 31 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. (1975). Spanish adverbs: support for the phonological cycle? LIn 6. 602–605.Google Scholar