Despite the vast research on language carried out by the generative linguistics of Noam Chomsky and his followers since the 1950s, for theoretical reasons (mainly their attention to the mental abstraction of language structure rather than language as a performed product), historical linguistics from the start lay outside their research interest. This study is an attempt to bridge the gap between the formalism and theoretical constructs introduced by generative grammar, whose ultimate goal is to provide not only a description but also an explanation to linguistic phenomena, and historical linguistics, which studies the evolution of language over time. This main objective is met by providing a formal account of the changes hwæðer undergoes throughout the Old English (OE) period. This seemingly inconspicuous word presents itself as a case of particular investigative interest in that it reflects the different stages proclaimed by the theoretical assumptions implemented in the study, namely the economy principles responsible for what has become known as the CP cycle: the Head Preference Principle and the Late Merge Principle, whereby pronominal hwæðer would raise to the specifier position for topicalization purposes, then after frequent use in that position, it would be base-generated there under Late Merge, until later reanalysis as the head of the Complementizer Phrase (CP) under Head Preference. Thus, I set out to classify the diverse functions of OE hwæðer by identifying and analyzing all instances as recorded in the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data have rendered the following results: 1) a fully satisfactory functional and chronological classification has been obtained by analyzing the data under investigation following a formal theoretical approach; and 2) a step-by-step historical analysis proves to be indispensable for understanding how language works at the abstract level from a historical point of view. This project is part of a growing body of research on language change which attempts to describe and explain the evolution of certain words as these change in form and function.

Lakoff and Levinson claim they have discredited the theory of universal grammar. This dissertation discusses the possibility of a universal humor, suggesting that if universals exist in language's most playful and least rule-governed aspect then they must exist in grammar, language's least playful and most rule-governed aspect. Lakoff's and Levinson's texts are closely analyzed to demonstrate that their claims against Chomsky are not firmly supported; that their groundbreaking new theories of language, perception and cognition do not constitute data that undermines Chomskyan theory; that Levinson's theory of a universal mechanism for human interaction is no stronger than the the grammar universals that Levinson strongly rejects. It is suggested that the litmus test of culture-specific versus universal language may be its level of rhetorical density, as illustrated with humor and naming samples. It is argued that Fillmore's deep case theory, as explained by Nilsen using semantic features and pragmatic intent, has never lost its status as a linguistic universal; Chomsky's theoretical debt to Charles Fillmore may indicate that he unconsciously used Fillmore's deep case, which for Chomsky became thematic relations, without realizing that Fillmore had been the impetus for his research. It is argued that none of the theories of universality, typology or conceptual metaphor may be considered mutually exclusive.