{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038120567375886524, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01773049645390071, 'mean_word_length': 5.720238095238095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Methods and argumentation in historical linguistics: A case study

The present chapter aims to discuss some properties of historical linguistics argumentation, through the analysis of examples taken from actual research practice. Relying on Kertesz and Rakosi’s (2012) p-model of scientific theorizing, it compares three competing accounts of the historical development of the Catalan construction “anar ‘go’ + infinitive”, namely, those provided in Colon (1979a, b), in Detges (2004) and in Juge (2006). The simultaneous plausibility of some statements and their negations in the starting p-context formed by these three approaches leads to a p-inconsistency, which is eliminated by the extension of the starting p-context and, then, the coordination of the extended p-context. The analysis of historical research practice from a methodological point of view suggests that the development of the Catalan “anar ‘go’ + infinitive” construction finds the most satisfactory explanation under Juge’s (2006) proposal, which uses sources, research methods and argumentation techniques traditionally accepted in historical linguistics.