Abstract
<jats:p>The why and how of language change has preoccupied linguists for a long time and touches on many issues regarding the architecture of the human language faculty. If the syntax shows features of perfect design in matching sentential structure with sound and meaning, then why is it prone to change over time – sometimes with far‐reaching consequences for the language system at large? The present chapter encompasses a comparison of two diametrically opposite views about the paradox of changing syntax over time, to wit, the Inertia Theory and the Anti‐Inertia Theory. The central tenet of the Inertia Theory is that the syntax as the core component of grammar is in a state of equilibrium and only changes when forced to do so by independent phonological and morphological changes or else by anterior syntactic changes. The Anti‐Inertia Theory takes issue with this position and advocates a more dynamic outlook on syntax and syntactic change – one in which alternations in phrasal and clausal structure come forth from internal variation. In enhancing the expressive power of the language system, synchronic syntactic variation is in principle allowed by Universal Grammar and so is variation‐based syntactic change. If we find that syntactic change can arise endogenously without interface pressures or language‐external factors playing any role, then we have a strong case for the autonomy of syntax from phonology, morphology, and semantics.</jats:p>