Abstract
This chapter 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, 2012). In this chapter, 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 |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics |
| Editors | Nikolas Gisborne, Willem Hollmann |
| Publisher | John Benjamins |
| Pages | 87-114 |
| Number of pages | 262 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9789027242556 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 |
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