Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, C. 1990. ‘Review of van Kemenade, Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English’, Language 66: 146–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentzen, K. 2005. ‘What’s the better move?’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2: 153–88.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 267–94.Google Scholar

Bohnacker, U. and Christina, R. 2007. ‘How to start a V2 declarative clause: Transfer of syntax vs. information structure in L2 German’, Nordlyd 34(3): 29–56.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Durrleman-Tame, S. 2008. The syntax of Jamaican creole: A cartographic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eitler, T. and Westergaard, M. 2014. ‘Word order variation in late Middle English: The effect of information structure and audience design’, in Bech, K. and Eide, K. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Faarlund, J. T. 2000. ‘Reanalysis in word order stability and change’, in Sornicola, R., Poppe, E. and Shisha-Halevy, A. (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 119–32.Google Scholar

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 ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, Lund University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gregersen, F. and Pedersen, I. L. 1997. ‘Hovedsætningsordstilling i underordnede sætninger’ [Main clause word order in embedded clauses], Danske Folkemål 39: 55–112.Google Scholar

Gupta, A. 1994. The step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Haeberli, E. 2002. ‘Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 88–106.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hróarsdóttir, T. 2004. ‘Cues and expressions’, Nordlyd 32(1): 135–55.Google Scholar

Hyams, N. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iversen, R. 1973. ‘Om sluttstilling av verbet i norsk folkemål’ [On the final position of the verb in Norwegian spoken language], in Beito, O. T. and Hoff, I. (eds.), Frå norsk målføregransking: Utvalde utgreiingar 1908–1969. Oslo, Bergen and Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

Jonas, D. 2002. ‘Residual V-to-I’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation,’ in Beals, K. et al (eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 2: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar

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

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.) (2002). Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. and Westergaard, M. 2007. ‘Language acquisition and language change: Inter-relationships’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5): 396–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palmer, F. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar

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

Pintzuk, S. 2002. ‘Verb-object order in Old English: Variation as grammatical competition’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 276–99.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. 2014. Word order in Old Italian. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roeper, T. 1999. ‘Universal bilingualism’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3): 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sollid, H. 2003. ‘Dialektsyntaks i Nordreisa: Språkdannelse og stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk’ [Dialect syntax in Nordreisa: Language creation and stabilization in a contact situation between Kven-Finnish and Norwegian], unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2010. ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. ‘First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English’, International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3): 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Valian, V. 1990. ‘Null subjects: A problem for parameter-setting models of language acquisition’, Cognition 35(2): 105–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Valian, V. 1991. ‘Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children’, Cognition 40: 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Kemenade, A. and Westergaard, M. 2012. ‘Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English’, in Meurman Solin, A., López-Couso, M. J. and Los, B. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English (Oxford Studies in the History of English 2). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–118.Google Scholar

Vittersø, G. 2004. ‘Fra sva til sav: Stabilitet og endring i norske leddsetninger 1200–1875’ [From sva to sav: Stability and change in Norwegian embedded clauses 1200–1875], unpublished cand.philol. thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Waldmann, C. 2008. ‘Input och output: Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser’ [Input and output: Word order in Swedish children’s main and embedded clauses]. Lundastudier A 65, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.Google Scholar

Warner, A. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.Google Scholar

Warner, A. 1983. ‘Review of D. Lightfoot, Principles of diachronic syntax’, Journal of Linguistics 19:187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. 2007. ‘Parameters of variation between verb-subject and subject-verb order in late Middle English’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2008. ‘Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues’, Lingua 118(12): 1841–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009a. ‘Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1): 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009b. ‘The development of word order in Old and Middle English: The role of information structure and first language acquisition’, Diachronica 26(1): 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009c. The acquisition of word order: Micro-cues, information structure and economy (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009d. ‘Many small catastrophes: Gradualism in a microparametric perspective’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2013. ‘The acquisition of linguistic variation: Parameters vs. micro-cues’, in Lohndal, T. (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 275–98.Google Scholar

Westergaard, M. and Bentzen, K. 2007. ‘The (non-)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses’, in Gülzow, I. and Gagarina, N. (eds.), Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept [Studies on Language Acquisition]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 271–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M., Vangsnes, Ø.A. and Lohndal, T. 2012. ‘Norwegian som: The complementizer that climbed to the matrix Left Periphery and caused Verb Second violations’, in Bianchi, V. and Chesi, C. (eds.), Enjoy linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Siena: CISCL Press, pp. 329–43.Google Scholar

Wexler, K. 1999. ‘Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage’, in Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Shillock, R. (eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing, special issue of Lingua 106: 23–79.Google Scholar

Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yang, C. 2010. ‘Universal Grammar, statistics or both?’, in Yang, C. (ed.), Language acquisition (Critical concepts in linguistics), vol. II. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 128–40.Google Scholar