Does innovation need reanalysis

Syntactic reanalysis has been claimed to be the only mechanism capable of explaining syntactic change. However, the concept of syntactic reanalysis is flawed. It insufficiently accommodates gradience in synchronic grammar and in language change, and depends too heavily on ambiguity as a cause of change. Alternative mechanisms exist to account for innovation that do not suffer from these problems. At the same time, the problem of explaining syntactic innovations is partly tied to models of language that overstate the role of syntax. Part of the problem therefore disappears under different theoretical starting assumptions.

[1]  Elizabeth Coppock,et al.  Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends , 2010 .

[2]  R. Keller,et al.  Sprachwandel : von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache , 1990 .

[3]  David Lightfoot,et al.  Principles of diachronic syntax , 1979 .

[4]  Alice C. Harris.  Cross‐Linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change , 2003 .

[5]  Lieselotte Brems.  Measure Noun constructions : an instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization , 2003 .

[6]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency , 2008 .

[7]  Brian D. Joseph,et al.  Diachronic explanation: putting speakers back into the picture , 1992 .

[8]  Lyle Campbell.  What’s wrong with grammaticalization? , 2000 .

[9]  Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish , 2012 .

[10]  Alexander Bergs,et al.  The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns , 2008 .

[11]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Frontmatter , 1995 .

[12]  B. Heine,et al.  Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework , 1991 .

[13]  Paul J. Hopper,et al.  On some principles of grammaticization , 1991 .

[14]  Rena Torres Cacoullos,et al.  Gradual loss of analyzability: Diachronic priming effects , 2015 .

[15]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar , 2005 .

[16]  Anthony S. Kroch,et al.  Function and grammar in the history of English , 1989 .

[17]  S. Levinson,et al.  The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. , 2009, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[18]  William Croft,et al.  Explaining language change : an evolutionary approach , 2000 .

[19]  M. Tomasello,et al.  The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis , 2001 .

[20]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Language, Usage and Cognition , 2010 .

[21]  H. Andersen.  ABDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE CHANGE , 1973 .

[22]  J. Dubois.  Larousse de la langue française , 1977 .

[23]  Hendrik De Smet,et al.  Change through recombination: blending and analogy , 2013 .

[24]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition , 2005 .

[25]  M. Garrett.  Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[26]  Anette Rosenbach,et al.  Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English , 2000 .

[27]  B. Joseph.  Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory , 2003 .

[28]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[29]  Hendrik De Smet,et al.  Serving two masters: Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams , 2013 .

[30]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  Optimality and diachronic adaptation , 1999 .

[31]  H. D. Smet.  The course of actualization , 2012 .

[32]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[33]  Raimo Anttila,et al.  Historical and comparative linguistics , 1989 .

[34]  Olga Fischer,et al.  Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives , 2007 .

[35]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[36]  Brian D. Joseph,et al.  The handbook of historical linguistics , 2003 .

[37]  Dirk Noël,et al.  Is there semantics in all syntax? The case of accusative and infinitive constructions vs. that-clauses , 2003 .

[38]  R. Baayen,et al.  Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[39]  D. Denison.  Category change in English with and without structural change , 2010 .

[40]  C. Buridant,et al.  Grammaire nouvelle de l'ancien français , 2000 .

[41]  Dwight L. Bolinger.  The imperative in English , 1966 .

[42]  Elly van Gelderen,et al.  Grammaticalization as economy , 2004 .

[43]  General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula* , 2007 .

[44]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Does grammaticalization need reanalysis , 1998 .

[45]  E. Traugott,et al.  Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization , 2010 .

[46]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective , 1995 .

[47]  Hendrik De Smet.  Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation , 2012 .

[48]  Thomas Berg.  Linguistic Structure and Change: An Explanation from Language Processing , 1998 .

[49]  M. Krug.  Emerging English modals : a corpus-based study of grammaticalization , 2000 .

[50]  Frans Plank.  Inevitable reanalysis: From local adpositions to approximative adnumerals, in German and wherever , 2004 .

[51]  Michael Barlow,et al.  Usage-based models of language , 2000 .

[52]  A. Meillet.  L'évolution des formes grammaticales , 1912 .

[53]  F. Newmeyer.  Language Form And Language Function , 1998 .

[54]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to Repetition , 2007 .

[55]  E. König,et al.  Categorial reanalysis: the case of deverbal prepositions , 1992 .

[56]  H. Andersen.  Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change , 2001 .