Journal article Open Access

Are there principles of grammatical change (A review article of David Lightfoot's book "The development of language")

Haspelmath, Martin

DataCite XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<resource xmlns:xsi="" xmlns="" xsi:schemaLocation="">
  <identifier identifierType="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1250543</identifier>
      <creatorName>Haspelmath, Martin</creatorName>
      <nameIdentifier nameIdentifierScheme="ORCID" schemeURI="">0000-0003-2100-8493</nameIdentifier>
      <affiliation>Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology</affiliation>
    <title>Are there principles of grammatical change (A review article of David Lightfoot's book "The development of language")</title>
    <subject>language change, neogrammarians, diachrony</subject>
    <date dateType="Issued">1999-11-01</date>
  <resourceType resourceTypeGeneral="JournalArticle"/>
    <alternateIdentifier alternateIdentifierType="url"></alternateIdentifier>
    <relatedIdentifier relatedIdentifierType="DOI" relationType="IsVersionOf">10.5281/zenodo.1250542</relatedIdentifier>
    <rights rightsURI="">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</rights>
    <rights rightsURI="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">Open Access</rights>
    <description descriptionType="Abstract">&lt;p&gt;This is a highly critical review of David Lightfoots 1999 book &amp;quot;The development of language&amp;quot;, which argues that there are no principles of grammatical change, so that &amp;ldquo;historicist&amp;rdquo; or deterministic approaches to diachronic change are misguided. Instead, Lightfoot argues that language change can only be understood by taking the perspective of the &amp;ldquo;growth&amp;rdquo; (i.e. acquisition) of an individual&amp;rsquo;s biological grammar, which may end up with a different parameter setting from the parent&amp;rsquo;s generation when the trigger experience changes. This review is very critical of most aspects of Lightfoot&amp;#39;s theory: his strange notions of &amp;ldquo;language&amp;rdquo; and &amp;ldquo;social grammar&amp;rdquo;, his failure to say anything meaningful about &amp;ldquo;nongrammatical changes&amp;rdquo; (i.e. apparently the great majority of changes), his unconstrained theoretical innovation of &amp;ldquo;diglossia&amp;rdquo;, his complete misunderstanding of the neogrammarian revolution, and his irresponsible ignoring of much of contemporary work on language change.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
All versions This version
Views 205206
Downloads 108109
Data volume 538.5 MB543.5 MB
Unique views 195196
Unique downloads 9394


Cite as