Get fulltext from our e-platform
Reconstructing Grammar
Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization
Editor
Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization theory both belong to the broader category of historical linguistics, yet few linguists practice both. The methods and goals of each group seem largely distinct: comparative linguists have by and large avoided reconstructing grammar, while grammaticalization theoreticians have either focused on explaining attested historical change or used internal reconstruction to formulate hypotheses about processes of change. In this collection, some of the leading voices in grammaticalization theory apply their methods to comparative data (largely drawn from indigenous languages of the Americas), showing not only that grammar can be reconstructed, but that the process of reconstructing grammar can yield interesting theoretical and typological insights.
[Typological Studies in Language, 43] 2000. xiv, 267 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Published online on 21 October 2008
Published online on 21 October 2008
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
- Preface | pp. vii–xiv
- Areal typology and grammaticalization: The emergence of new verbal morphology in an obsolescent languageAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald | p. 1
- Florescence as a Force in GrammaticalizationWallace Chafe | p. 39
- On the Genesis of the Verb Phrase in Cariban Languages: Diversity through ReanalysisSpike Gildea | p. 65
- Internal reconstruction: As method, as theoryT. Givón | p. 107
- The Concept of Proof in Genetic LinguisticsJoseph H. Greenberg | p. 161
- Grammaticalization chains across languages: An example from KhoisanBernd Heine | p. 177
- The accidental intransitive split in the Cariban familySérgio Meira | p. 201
- The reordering of morphemesMarianne Mithun | p. 231
- Language and Language Family Index | pp. 257–260
- Name Index | pp. 261–264
- Subject Index | pp. 265–267
Cited by (38)
Cited by 38 other publications
Nicodemus, Benjamin
Mattiola, Simone & Spike Gildea
Durand, Tom
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
Nikulin, Andrey & Andrés Pablo Salanova
Sommerer, Lotte
2019. Van Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.). (2018).Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 317 ff.
Galucio, Ana Vilacy & Antônia Fernanda de Souza Nogueira
2018. From object nominalization to object focus. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 95 ff.
Hieber, Daniel W.
2018. Category genesis in Chitimacha. In Category change from a constructional perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language, 20], ► pp. 15 ff.
Luraghi, Silvia
Sapién, Racquel-María
Givón, T.
Givón, T.
Givón, T.
Everett, Caleb
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
Miller, D. Gary
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
2021. The pre-verbal ‘Augment’ e- in Homeric Greek as an earlier cycle of pre-verbal prepositions. In The Life Cycle of Adpositions, ► pp. 109 ff.
[no author supplied]
2021. Detached (‘severed’) prepositions in Homeric Greek. In The Life Cycle of Adpositions, ► pp. 89 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
2021. The pre-verbal ‘Augment’ e- in Homeric Greek when preceded by prepositions. In The Life Cycle of Adpositions, ► pp. 145 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.