LINGUISTICS: Historical Linguistics MORPHOLOGY, synchronic / diachronic. Critical review from: Anderson, Stephen R. 2014. Morphological change. In Bowern & Evans (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, pp. 264–285. Routledge. Instructions: • Three pages, size (11 or 12, single or 1.5). • A review is not the same as a summary. Please, avoid reiteration. • Your review should be structured: (introduction - summary of main points of the paper - criticism - conclusion, or something like that). • List all the points of the article that have value in Morphology. • Anderson gives a broad overview of different types of morphological change. You do not need to reiterate every example he gives. Give a broad summary and focus on a few examples that you find most interesting. • Briefly summarize the main points of the paper. It may be useful to do this section by section, following the organization of the paper. You should then critically evaluate his views. Some specific questions you should think about (not exhaustively) i.e.: – How does Anderson’s views compare to the I-language perspective? –Does he address the distinction between I-language and E-language directly, and if yes, how? Please see * at the end. – What is the cause/trigger for morphological change, according to Anderson? Please see trigger, triggered, in article’s p.5, near bottom. – What does he mean by “ambiguity of analysis”? Does he use the terms “reanalysis / misanalysis” properly, to your opinion? – What mechanisms drive analogy according to Anderson? Pay special attention to how he uses terms like “regularity”/“regularization” and “simplification”. Is his view compatible with the “I-language approach”? – What is grammaticalization, according to Anderson? Do we need a “theory of grammaticalization”? – Does he address the relationship between synchrony and diachrony? • You may pick two or three concrete case studies or claims by Anderson and evaluate them based on concrete ideas of Morphology. • Remember, this is a critical review. If you disagree with the author’s view, explain why and give arguments/counterarguments. If you agree with everything, you also need to say why and give arguments. * ((Please note in case of wondering about I- and E-: I-Language = Internal language, the language of scientific interest; a mental or psychological entity (not a grammarian's description of a language as externally manifested). E-Language = External language, that is, both ‘extensional’ (concerned with which sentences happen to satisfy a definition of a language rather than with what the definition says) and ‘external’ (external to the mind, that is, non-mental)).

Read less