Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 4.500

CiteScore 2018: 0.46

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.233
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.337

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 45, Issue 3-4


Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change

George Walkden / Anne Breitbarth
Published Online: 2019-11-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0012


Recent work has cast doubt on the idea that all languages are equally complex; however, the notion of syntactic complexity remains underexplored. Taking complexity to equate to difficulty of acquisition for late L2 acquirers, we propose an operationalization of syntactic complexity in terms of uninterpretable features. Trudgill’s sociolinguistic typology predicts that sociohistorical situations involving substantial late L2 acquisition should be conducive to simplification, i.e. loss of such features. We sketch a programme for investigating this prediction. In particular, we suggest that the loss of bipartite negation in the history of Low German and other languages indicates that it may be on the right track.

Keywords: sociolinguistic typology; syntactic change; L2 acquisition; simplification; Interpretability Hypothesis


  • Anderson, S. R. & D. Lightfoot. 2002. The language organ: linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Atkinson, M., S. Kirby & K. Smith. 2015. Speaker input variability does not explain why larger populations have simpler languages. PloS One 10. e0129463.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Auger, J. & A.-J. Villeneuve. 2008. Ne deletion in Picard and in regional French: Evidence for distinct grammars. In M. Meyerhoff & N. Nagy (eds.), Social lives in language, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Barbosa, P. 2011a. Pro-drop and theories of pro in the Minimalist Program, part 1: Consistent null subject languages and the pronominal-Agr hypothesis. Language and Linguistics Compass 5. 551–570.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barbosa, P. 2011b. Pro-drop and theories of pro in the Minimalist Program, part 2: Pronoun deletion analyses of null subjects and partial, discourse and semi pro-drop. Language and Linguistics Compass 5. 571–587.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barteld, F., K. Dreessen, S. Ihden & I. Schröder. 2017. Das Referenzkorpus Mittelniederdeutsch/Niederrheinisch (1200–1650) – Korpusdesign, Korpuserstellung und Korpusnutzung. In A. Becker & A. Hausmann (eds.), Mittelniederdeutsche Literatur. Mitteilungen des deutschen Germanistenverbandes, vol. 64. Jg./H. 3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

  • Beheydt, G. 1998. Het gebruik en de vorm van de negatie in het zuidelijke Nederlands in een diachronisch perspectief (15e–20e eeuw). University of Leuven Licentiate’s thesis.Google Scholar

  • Bentz, C. & B. Winter. 2013. Languages with more second-language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3. 1–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bernini, G. & P. Ramat. 1996. Negative sentences in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Beyer, K. 2009. Double negation-marking. A case of contact-induced grammaticalization in West Africa? In N. Cyffer, et al. (eds.), Negation Patterns in West African Languages and Beyond, 205–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Biberauer, T., A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan. 2014. Complexity in comparative syntax: The view from modern parametric theory. In F. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 103–127. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Biberauer, T. & G. Walkden. 2015. Introduction: Changing views of syntactic change. In T. Biberauer & G. Walkden (eds.), Syntax over time: Lexical, morphological, and information-structural interactions, 1–13. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Bini, M. 1993. La adquisición del italiano: Más allá de las propiedades sintácticas del parámetro pro-drop. In J. M. Liceras (eds.), La lingüística y el análisis de los sistemas no nativos, 126–139. Ottawa: Dovehouse.Google Scholar

  • Bley-Vroman, R. 1989. What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. M. Gass & A. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, 141–168. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Braunmüller, K. 2007. Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (eds.), Receptive multilingualism, 25–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Breitbarth, A. 2013. Negation in the history of Low German and Dutch. In D. Willis, et al. (eds.), The development of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, 190–238. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Breitbarth, A. 2014a. The history of Low German negation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Breitbarth, A. 2014b. Dialect contact and the speed of Jespersen’s cycle in Middle Low German. Taal en Tongval 66. 1–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Breitbarth, A. 2015. Exceptive negation in Middle Low German. In E. Brandner, et al. (eds.), Charting the landscape of linguistics. On the scope of Josef Bayer’s work, 11–15. Konstanz. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/WebschriftBayer/2015/contents_files/Webschrift_Bayer.pdf.

  • Breitbarth, A. 2017. Jespersen’s Cycle=Minimize Structure + Feature Economy. In S. Cruschina, et al. (eds.), Studies on negation : Syntax, semantics, and variation, vol. 3, 21–47. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

  • Breitbarth, A. & A.-S. Ghyselen. 2018. Ge had dien een keer moeten en zien! Het “Gesproken Corpus van de (Zuidelijk-)Nederlandse Dialecten”. Paper presented at the Dag van de Nederlandse zinsbouw, Ghent University, 21 Dec 2018.Google Scholar

  • Breitbarth, A. & L. Haegeman. 2014. The distribution of preverbal en in (West) Flemish: syntactic and interpretive properties. Lingua 147. 69–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buridant, C. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: SEDES.Google Scholar

  • Burridge, K. 1993. Syntactic change in Germanic: Aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Catalani, L. 2001. Die Negation im Mittelfranzösischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Chociej, J. 2011. Polish null subjects: English influence on heritage Polish in Toronto. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, et al. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Coveney, A. 1996. Variability in spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Exeter: Elm Bank.Google Scholar

  • D’Alessandro, R. 2015. Null subjects. In A. Fábregas, et al. (eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters, 201–226. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Ö. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17. 79–106.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Ö. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Devos, M. & J. van der Auwera. 2013. Jespersen Cycles in Bantu: Double and triple negation. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 34/2. 205–274.Google Scholar

  • Diercks, M. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15. 253–286.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dryer, M. S. & M. Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info.

  • Ehret, K. & B. Szmrecsányi. 2019. Compressing learner language: An information-theoretic measure of complexity in SLA production data. Second Language Research 35(1). 23–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ehret, K. & B. Szmrecsányi. 2016. An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. In R. Baechler & G. Seiler (eds.), Complexity, isolation, and variation, 71–94. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Eythórsson, T. 2002. Negation in C: The syntax of negated verbs in Old Norse. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 25(2). 190–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goss, E. L. 2002. Negotiated language change in Early Modern Holland. Immigration and linguistic variation in The Hague (1600–1670). University of Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Hagemeijer, T. 2008. Double-headed negation in Santome. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7(2). 63–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hale, J. T. 2016. Information-theoretical complexity metrics. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 397–412.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hale, M. 1998. Diachronic syntax. Syntax 1. 1–18.Google Scholar

  • Hansen, M.-B. M. 2013. Negation in the history of French. In D. Willis, et al. (eds.), The development of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, 51–76. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, R. & H. Hattori. 2006. Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research 22. 269–301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haznedar, B. 2006. Persistent problems with case morphology in L2 acquisition. In C. Lleó (ed.), Interfaces in multilingualism: Acquisition and representation, 179–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Heap, D. & N. G. Nagy. 1998. Subject pronoun variation in Faetar and Francoprovençal. Papers in Sociolinguistics. NWAVE-26 à l’Université Laval, 291–300. Québec: Nota bene.Google Scholar

  • Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Heycock, C. & J. Wallenberg. 2013. How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16. 127–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hockett, C. F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Holmberg, A. 2010. Null subject parameters. In T. Biberauer, et al. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist theory, 88–124. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Howell, R. B. 2006. Immigration and koinéisation: The formation of early modern Dutch urban vernaculars. Transactions of the Philological Society 104. 207–227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ingham, R. 2008. Contact with Scandinavian and Late Middle English negative concord. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44. 121–137.Google Scholar

  • Ingham, R. 2013. Negation in the history of English. In D. Willis, et al. (eds.), The development of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, 119–150. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Jäger, A. 2008. History of German negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Kopenhagen: A.F. Høst. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I,5.Google Scholar

  • Jon-And, A. & E. Aguilar. 2016. Modeling language change triggered by language shift. In S. G. Roberts, et al. (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11). http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/156.html.

  • Juola, P. 1998. Measuring linguistic complexity: The morphological tier. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 5. 206–213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Juola, P. 2008. Assessing linguistic complexity. In In M. Miestamo, et al. (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 89–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kato, M. A. 2012. Brazilian Portuguese and Caribbean Spanish: Similar changes in Romania Nova. In C. Galves, et al. (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change, 117–132. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Kiparsky, P. 1997. The rise of positional licensing. In A. van Kemenade & N. Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 460–494. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Kiparsky, P. & Condoravdi, C. 2006. Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle. In M. Janse, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, 172–197. Mytilene: Doukas.Google Scholar

  • Koelmans, L. 1967. Over de verbreiding van het ontkennende en. De Nieuwe Taalgids 60. 12–18.Google Scholar

  • Kolmogorov, A. N. 1965. Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 1. 3–11.Google Scholar

  • Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. 2000. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English Prose, 2nd edn. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/index.html.

  • Laing, M. 2013–. A linguistic atlas of early middle English. Version 3.2. https://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme2_framesZ.html.

  • Lardiere, D. 2008. Feature assembly in second language acquisition. In J. Liceras, et al. (eds.), The role of features in second language acquisition, 106–140. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Lasch, A. 1914. Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Lucas, C. 2013. Negation in the history of Arabic and Afro-Asiatic. In D. Willis, et al. (eds.), The development of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, 399–452. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Lucas, C. & E. Lash. 2010. Contact as catalyst: The case for Coptic influence in the development of Arabic negation. Journal of Linguistics 46(2). 379–413.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lupyan, G. & R. Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS One 5. e8559.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Martineau, F. & R. Mougeon. 2003. A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne-deletion in European and Quebec French. Language 79. 118–152.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mathieu, E. & R. Truswell. 2017. Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax. In E. Mathieu & R. Truswell (eds.), Micro-change and macro-change in diachronic syntax, 1–9. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • McFadden, T. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Meisel, J. M. 2011. Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14. 121–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miestamo, M., et al. (eds.). 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Neuckermans, A. 2008. Negatie in de Vlaamse dialecten volgens de gegevens van de Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (SAND). Ghent University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Newmeyer, F. J. & L. B. Preston. (eds.). 2014. Measuring grammatical complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Otheguy, R., A. C. Zentella & D. Livert. 2007. Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Towards the formation of a speech community. Language 83. 1–33.Google Scholar

  • Owens, J. 2001. Creole Arabic: the orphan of all orphans. Anthropological Linguistics 43. 348–378.Google Scholar

  • Peters, R. 2000. Sozio-kulturelle Voraussetzungen und Sprachraum des Mittelniederdeutschen. In W. Besch, et al. (eds.), Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, 2. Teilband, 1408–1422. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Peters, R. 2017. Das Referenzkorpus Mittelniederdeutsch/Niederrheinisch (1200–1650). Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 140. 35–42.Google Scholar

  • Pohl, J. 1968. Ne dans le français parlé contemporain: les modalités de son abandon. In A. Quilis Morales, et al. (eds.), Actas del XI Congreso internacional de lingüística y filología románicas, 1343–1359. Madrid: Revista de Filología Española.Google Scholar

  • Pollard, C. & I. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, I. & A. Holmberg. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In T. Biberauer, et al. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, 1–57. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, I. & A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, S. G. & J. Winters. 2013. Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PloS One 8. e70902.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V-to-I-raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rothman, J. & R. Slabakova. 2018. The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40. 417–442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rutten, G. & M. van der Wal. 2013. Change, contact and conventions in the history of Dutch. Taal en Tongval 65(1). 97–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rutten, G., M. van der Wal, J. Nobels & T. Simons. 2012. Negation in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch: a historical-sociolinguistic perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113. 323–342.Google Scholar

  • Sampson, G., D. Gil & P. Trudgill (eds.). 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Sankoff, G. & D. Vincent. 1977. L’emploi productif du ne dans le français parlé à Montréal. Le Français Moderne 45. 243–256.Google Scholar

  • Schüler, J. 2016. Alte und neue Fragen zur mittelhochdeutschen Negationssyntax. In A. Speyer & P. Rauth (eds.), Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht I. Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 165, 91–107. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Schütze, C. T. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case and Licensing. MIT Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Schwartz, B. D. & R. A. Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sheehan, M. & J. van der Wal. 2018. Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics 54. 527–589.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simonenko, A., B. Crabbé & S. Prévost. To appear. Null subject loss and subject agreement syncretisation: Quantificational models for Medieval French. Language Variation and Change.Google Scholar

  • Slabakova, R. 2009. What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language? In M. Bowles, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 280–294. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1. 1–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sorace, A., L. Serratrice, F. Filiaci & M. Baldo. 2009. Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua 119. 460–477.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steedman, M. 2000. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Stellmacher, D. 1990. Niederdeutsche Sprache: Eine Einführung. Bern etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Szmrecsányi, B. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle, et al. (eds.), Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, vol. 2, 1032–1039. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar

  • Thurston, W. 1989. How exoteric languages build a lexicon: Esoterogeny in West New Britain. In R. Harlow & R. Hooper (eds.), VICAL I: Papers in Oceanic linguistics, 555–579. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar

  • Toribio, A. J. 1996. Dialectal variation in the licensing of null referential and expletive subjects. In C. Prodi, et al. (eds.), Aspects of Romance linguistics, 409–432. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Torres Cacoullos, R. & C. E. Travis. 2011. Testing convergence via codeswitching: priming and the structure of variable subject expression. International Journal of Bilingualism 15. 241–267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traugott, E. & G. Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Trotzke, A. & C. J.-W. Zwart. 2014. The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and Simplest Merge. In F. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity, 128–147. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Tsimpli, I. M. 2014. Early, late or very late? Timing acquisition and bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(3). 283–313.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tsimpli, I. M. & M. Dimitrakopoulou. 2007. The Interpretability Hypothesis: Evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 23. 215–242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Vandekerckhove, R. 2009. Dialect loss and dialect vitality in Flanders. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 196/197. 73–97.Google Scholar

  • Vergnaud, J.-R. 1977. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik. Ms.Google Scholar

  • Vosters, R. & W. Vandenbussche 2012. Bipartite negation in 18th and early 19th century Southern Dutch: Sociolinguistic aspects of norms and variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113. 343–364.Google Scholar

  • Walkden, G. 2014. Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Walkden, G. & D. A. Morrison. 2017. Regional variation in Jespersen’s Cycle in Early Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 52. 173–201.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wallage, P. 2005. Negation in early English: Parametric variation and grammatical competition. University of York Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Wallage, P. 2017. Negation in early English: Grammatical and functional change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Weerman, F. 1993. The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: The change from OV to VO. Linguistics 31. 903–931.Google Scholar

  • Weerman, F. 2014. Input and age effects: quo vadis? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(3). 381–386.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weerman, F., M. Olson & R. A. Cloutier. 2013. Synchronic variation and loss of case: Formal and informal language in a Dutch corpus of 17th-century Amsterdam texts. Diachronica 30(3). 353–381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Willis, D., C. Lucas & A. Breitbarth. 2013. Comparing diachronies of negation. In D. Willis, et al. (eds.), The development of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, 1–50. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Willmott, J. 2013. Negation in the history of Arabic and Afro-Asiatic. In D. Willis, et al. (eds.), The development of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, 299–340. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar

  • Wittmann, H. 1995. Grammaire comparée des variétés coloniales du français populaire de Paris du 17e siècle et origines du français québécois. In R. Fournier & H. Wittmann (eds.), Le français des Amériques, 281–334. Trois-Rivières: Presses universitaires de Trois-Rivières.Google Scholar

  • Witzenhausen, E. 2019. Von Negation zu Domänensubtraktion: Die Funktion der Negationspartikel ne/en im Mittelniederdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 141(1). 1–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Woolford, E. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 111–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wray, A. & G. Grace. 2007. The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117. 543–578.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-11-30

Published in Print: 2019-12-18

Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 45, Issue 3-4, Pages 183–209, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0012.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in