Abstract
This paper compares two approaches to a particular grammatical change. While Ball (1991, 1994) investigates the development of the it-cleft configuration from within the generative tradition of the 1990s, I have recently re-examined the historical it-cleft data from a constructional perspective (see Patten 2010, forthcoming). In this paper, I show how our different theoretical assumptions lead us to categorize and analyse the data differently. I conclude that a constructional approach is better at interpreting the diachronic facts.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 548-575 |
| Journal | Studies in Language |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 14 Dec 2012 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The historical development of the it-cleft: A comparison of two different approaches'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver