Bailey, C.-J. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bean, M. C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blythe, R. and Croft, W. 2012. ‘S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change’, Language 88: 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H. 1998. ‘Two heads aren’t always better than one’, Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1951. ‘A mathematical model for simple learning’, Psychological Review 58: 313–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1958. Stochastic models for learning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Canale, W. M. 1978. ‘Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.Google Scholar

Cukor-Avila, P. 2002. ‘She say, she go, she be like: Verbs of quotation over time in African American Vernacular English’, American Speech 77: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danchev, A. 1991. ‘Language change typology and some aspects of the SVO development in English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar

Durham, M., Haddican, B., Zweig, E., Johnson, D., Baker, Z., Cockeram, D., Danks, E. and Tyler, L. 2012. ‘Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like’, Journal of English Linguistics 40: 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ecay, A. 2015. ‘Construction and lexical class effects in the history of do-support’, presentation at DiGS17, Reykjavík, Iceland, 29–31 May 2015.Google Scholar

Ellegård, A. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Falk, C. 1993. ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haeberli, E. and Pintzuk, S. 2011. ‘Verb (projection) raising in Old English’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 219–38.Google Scholar

Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. ‘How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heycock, C., Sorace, A. and Hansen, Z.S. 2010. ‘V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohonen, V. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 A.D.: A quantitative study of word order in context. Meddelanden Fran Stiftelsens for Äbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, no. 38. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 1989a. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 1989b. ‘Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do’, in Fasold, R. W. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 132–72.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2: 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699–729.Google Scholar

Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Delfs, L. 2004. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Diertani, A. 2010. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. 1979. ‘The English passive: An argument for historical rule stability’, Linguistic Inquiry 10: 667–88.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1981. ‘Explaining syntactic change’, in Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. W. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 207–40.Google Scholar

Los, B. 2009. ‘The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English’, English Language and Linguistics 13(1): 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, B. 1979. ‘F. Th. Visser, An historical syntax of the English language: Some caveats concerning Old English’, English Studies 60: 537–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pérez Lorido, R. 2009. ‘Reconsidering the role of syntactic “heaviness” in Old English split coordination’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 45.1: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. and Plug, L. 2002. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry (YCOEP). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang18/pcorpus.html).Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. and Taylor, A. 2006. ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 249–78.Google Scholar

Platzack, C. 1988. ‘The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses’, in Fekete, D. and Laubitz, Z. (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, pp. 215–38.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 1985. ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop (Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russom, J. H. 1982. ‘An examination of the evidence for OE indirect passives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 677–80.Google Scholar

Santorini, B. 1993. ‘The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish’, Language Variation and Change 5: 257–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sprouse, A. R. and Vance, B. S. 1999. ‘An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance languages’, in DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–83.Google Scholar

Stockwell, R. 1977. ‘Motivations for exbraciation in Old English’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stockwell, R. and Minkova, D. 1991. ‘Subordination and word order change in the history of English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 367–408.Google Scholar

Sundquist, J. D. 2002. ‘Morphosyntactic change in the history of the Mainland Scandinavian languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Sundquist, J. D. 2003. ‘The rich agreement hypothesis and Early Modern Danish embedded-clause word order’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 233–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, S. A. and D’Arcy, A. 2009. ‘Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change’, Language 85(1): 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, A., Nurmi, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Nevalainen, T. 2006. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/PCEEC-manual/index.htm).Google Scholar

Taylor, A. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Special issue on aspects of OV and VO order in the history of English’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Beths, F. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edition (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YcoeHome1.htm).Google Scholar

van der Wurff, W. 1999. ‘Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: A word order parallel and its causes’, Lingua 109: 237–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vikner, S. 1997. ‘V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, K. 2008. ‘Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish’, Probus 20: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wallenberg, J. 2009. ‘Antisymmetry and the conservation of c-command: Scrambling and phrase structure in synchronic and diachronic perspective’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Wallenberg, J., Ingason, A. K., Sigurðsson, E. F. and Rögnvaldsson, E. 2011. Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus (IcePaHC). Department of Linguistics, University of Iceland. Online publication, version 0.9. (www.linguist.is/icelandic_treebank).Google Scholar

Warner, A. 2004. ‘What drove DO?’, in Kay, C., Horobin, S. and Smith, J. (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–42.Google Scholar

Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar

Yang, C. 2000. ‘Internal and external forces in language change’, Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar