Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWalkden, George
dc.date.accessioned2010-11-30T00:36:13Z
dc.date.available2010-11-30T00:36:13Z
dc.date.created2010-11-30
dc.date.issued2010-11-30
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/227574
dc.descriptionRevised version added 12 March 2012
dc.description.abstractIn this paper I challenge the Inertial Theory of language change put forward by Longobardi (2001), which claims that syntactic change does not arise unless caused and that any such change must originate as an ‘interface phenomenon’. It is shown that these two claims and the resulting contention that ‘syntax, by itself, is diachronically completely inert’ (Longobardi 2001: 278), if construed as a substantive, falsifiable theory of diachrony, make predictions that are too strong, and that they cannot be reduced (as seems desirable) to properties of language acquisition. I also express doubt as to the utility and necessity of a methodological/heuristic principle of Inertia, broadly following Lass’s (1980) view of causality.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by AHRC doctoral award AH/H026924/1.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserveden
dc.rights.urihttps://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/en
dc.subjectinertiaen_GB
dc.subjectsyntaxen_GB
dc.subjectchangeen_GB
dc.subjectdiachronyen_GB
dc.subjectacquisitionen_GB
dc.subjectcausalityen_GB
dc.titleAgainst inertiaen_GB
dc.typeWorking Paperen_GB
dc.type.versionupdated versionen_GB


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record