Adelaar, Willem F. H. (with Muysken, Pieter C.), 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 2011. The wonders of the Gran Chaco: Setting the scene. Indiana 28: 171–181.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds), 2001a. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 2001b. Introduction. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan, 1998. Revisiting the Balkan and Meso-American linguistic areas. Language Sciences 20: 259–270.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 1985. Areal linguistics and its implications for historical linguistic theory. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Historical Linguistics, pp. 25–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 1994. Grammar: Typological and areal issues. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, pp. 1471–1474. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 1996a. Typological and areal issues. In Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim (eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories, pp. 339–343. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Reprint of 1994, in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 1996b. Phonetics and phonology. In Goebl, Hans, Nelde, Peter H., Stary, Zdenek and Wölck, Wolfgang (eds), An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 14: Contact Linguistics, pp. 98–103. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2002. Areal linguistics. In Smelser, Neil J. and Balte, Paul B. (eds), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 729–733, volume edited by Comrie, Bernard. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2006a. Areal linguistics: A closer scrutiny. In Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April and Vincent, Nigel (eds), Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, pp. 1–31. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2006b. Contacto lingüístico entre las lenguas del Gran Chaco: Existe una area lingüística chaqueña? Paper presented at the symposium Advances in South American Historical Linguistics, 52nd International Congress of Americanists, Seville, Spain, 17–21 July 2006.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2012a. The classification of South American indigenous languages. In Campbell, and Grondona, (eds), pp. 59–166.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2012b. Typological characteristics of South American indigenous languages. In Campbell, and Grondona, (eds), pp. 259–330.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2013. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, third edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, Bubenik, Vit and Saxon, Leslie, 1988. Word order universals: Refinements and clarifications. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33: 209–230.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle and Grondona, Verónica, 2012a. Languages of the Chaco and Southern Cone. In Campbell, and Grondona, (eds), pp. 625–668.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle and Grondona, Verónica (eds), 2012b. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence and Smith-Stark, Thomas, 1986. Mesoamerica as a linguistic area. Language 62: 530–570.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard, Golluscio, Lucía A., González, Hebe and Vidal, Alejandra, 2010. El Chaco como área lingüística. In Fernández, Zarina Estrada and Marín, Ramón Arzápalo (eds), Estudios de Lenguas Amerindias 2: Contribuciones al Estudio de las Lenguas Originarias de América, pp. 85–132. Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico: Editorial Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar

Curnow, Timothy Jowan, 2001. What language features can be ‘borrowed’? In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 412–436.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen, 2001. Principles of areal typology. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, pp. 1456–1470. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Daumé, Hal III, 2009. Non-parametric Bayesian areal linguistics. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL ’09), pp. 593–601. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B., 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32: 3–16. Reprinted in Emeneau, 1980, pp. 38–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B., 1965. India and linguistic areas. In India and Historical Grammar. Ammamalai University, Department of Linguistics, pub. no. 5, pp. 25–75. Reprinted in Emeneau, 1980, pp. 126–166.Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B., 1978. Review of Defining a Linguistic Area, by Colin P. Masica. Language 54: 201–210. Reprinted with additions in Emeneau, 1980, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B., 1980. Language and Linguistic Area, essays by Emeneau, Murray B., selected and introduced by Dil, Anwar S.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Fabre, Alain, 2007. Morfosintaxis de los clasificadores posesivos en las lenguas del Gran Chaco (Argentina, Bolivia y Paraguay). UniverSOS: Revista de lenguas indígenas y universos culturales 4: 67–85.Google Scholar

Gerzenstein, Ana, 2004. Las consonantes laterales y labializadas en lenguas mataguayas del Chaco argentino paraguayo. In Fernández, Zarina Estrada, Fernández Garay, Ana V. and González, A. Álvarez (eds), Estudios en Lenguas Amerindias: Homenaje a Ken L. Hale, pp. 183–197. Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico: Editorial Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar

Gerzenstein, Ana and Gualdieri, Beatriz, 2003. La armonía vocálica en lenguas chaqueñas de las familias Guaicurú y Mataguaya. LIAMES 3: 99–112.Google Scholar

Giannini, Stefania and Scaglione, Stefania, 2002. On defining the notion of areality coefficient: The diagnostic value of quantitative criteria. In Ramat, Paolo and Stolz, Thomas (eds), Mediterranean Languages: Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000, pp. 151–170. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Grondona, Verónica, 2003. Are Guaycuruan and Matacoan languages related? A preliminary account. Paper presented at the 17th International Congress of Linguists, July 2003, Prague.Google Scholar

Grubb, W. Barbrooke, 1914. An Unknown People in an Unknown Land. London: Seeley, Service & Co.Google Scholar

Haig, Jeffrey, 2001. Linguistic diffusion in present-day East Anatolia: From top to bottom. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 195–224.Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey, 1978. Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Heaton, Raina, in press. Active–stative agreement in Tunica. Anthropological Linguistics.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania, 2001. Convergence and divergence in the development of African languages. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 393–411.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond, 1999. Ireland as a linguistic area. In Mallory, J. P. (ed.), Language in Ulster, pp. 36–53. Special issue of Ulster Folklife 45. Holywood, Co. Down, Northern Ireland: Ulster Folk and Transport Museum.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond, 2010. Language contact: Reassessment and reconsideration. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, pp. 1–28. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond, 2012. English in Ireland. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Areal Features of the Anglophone World, pp. 79–107. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katz, Harmut, 1975. Generative Phonologie und Phonologische Sprachbünde des Ostjakischen und Samojedischen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Kirtchuk, Pablo, 1996. Lingüística areal: Deixis y clasificación nominal en lenguas del Gran Chaco. In Martín, Eusebia H. and Diez, Andrés Pérez (eds), Lenguas Indígenas de Argentina 1492–1992, pp. 19–32. (Instituto de Investigaciones Lingüísticas y Filológicas ‘Manuel Alvar’.) San Juan: Editorial Fundación Universidad Nacional de San Juan.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania, 1998. Large linguistic areas in grammaticalization: Auxiliation in Europe. Language Sciences 20: 289–311.Google Scholar

Lindstedt, Jouko, 2000. Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In Gilbers, Dicky, Nerbonne, John and Schaeken, Jos (eds), Languages in Contact, pp. 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin P., 1992. Areal linguistics. In Bright, William (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, pp. 108–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter, 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Messineo, Cristina, 2003. Lengua toba (guaycurú): Aspectos gramaticales y discursivos. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Messineo, Cristina, 2011. Aproximación tipológica a las lenguas indígenas del Gran Chaco: Rasgos compartidos entre toba (familia guaycurú) y maká (familia mataco-mataguayo). Indiana 28: 183–225.Google Scholar

Messineo, Cristina, Carol, Javier and Klein, Harriet Manelis, 2011. Los determinantes demostrativos en las lenguas guaycurúes y mataguayas (Región del Gran Chaco). Paper presented at the Memorias del V Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica, 6–8 October 2011, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar

Métraux, Alfred, 1946. Ethnography of the Chaco. In Steward, Julian H. (ed.), Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 1: The Marginal Tribes, pp. 197–370. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Miller, Elmer S. (ed.), 1999. Peoples of the Gran Chaco. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar

Murdock, George P., 1951. Outline of South American Cultures. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files, Inc.Google Scholar

Muysken, Pieter, Hammarström, Harald, Birchall, Joshua, van Gijn, Rik, Krasnoukhova, Olga and Müller, Neele, 2015. Linguistic areas, bottom-up or top-down? The case of the Guaporé-Mamoré. In Comrie, Bernard and Golluscio, Lucia (eds), Language Contact and Documentation, pp. 205–238. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Rona, José Pedro, 1969–1972. Extensión del tipo chaqueño de lenguas. Revista de Antropología 17/20: 93–103.Google Scholar

Sarhimaa, Anneli, 1991. Karelian Sprachbund? Theoretical basis of the study of Russian/Baltic–Finnic contacts. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 50: 209–219.Google Scholar

Schaller, Helmut Wilhelm, 1975. Die Balkansprachen: Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, 2002. No sprachbund beyond this line! On the age-old discussion of how to define a linguistic area. In Ramat, Paolo and Stolz, Thomas (eds), Mediterranean Languages: Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000, pp. 259–281. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G., 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Terrence, 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Tonhauser, Judith, 2007. Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. Language 83: 831–869.Google Scholar

Tonhauser, Judith, 2008. Defining crosslinguistic categories: The case of nominal tense (Reply to Nordlinger and Sadler). Language 84: 332–342.Google Scholar

Tosco, M., 2000. Is there an Ethiopian language area? Anthropological Linguistics 42: 329–365.Google Scholar

Tovar, Antonio, 1961. Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana.Google Scholar

Tovar, Antonio and de Tovar, Consuelo Larrucea, 1984. Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich, 1928. Proposition 16. In Acts of the First International Congress of Linguists, pp. 17–18. Leiden.Google Scholar

Vidal, Alejandra and Gutiérrez, Analía, 2010. La categoría de ‘tiempo nominal’ en las lenguas chaqueñas. In Castel, V. M. and Cubo, L. (eds), La Renovación de la Palabra en el Bicentenario de la Argentina: 1348–1355. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Google Scholar

Viegas Barros, José Pedro, 2002. Fonología del proto-mataguayo. In Crevels, Mily, van der Voort, Hein, Meira, Sérgio and van de Kerke, Simon (eds), Current Studies on South American Languages: Contributions to the 50th International Congress of Americanists, pp. 137–148. Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series, vol. 3. Leiden: Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bentz, Christian and Winter, Bodo, 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3: 1–27.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, 2011. Statistical modeling of language universals. Linguistic Typology 15: 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, 2013. Distributional biases in language families. In Bickel, Balthasar, Grenoble, Lenore A., Peterson, David A. and Timberlake, Alan (eds), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, pp. 415–444. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, 2015. Distributional Typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, second edition, pp. 901–923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Hildebrandt, Kristine and Schiering, René, 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Bariş (eds), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, pp. 47–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar and Nichols, Johanna, 2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas. Proc. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32: 3–15.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar and Nichols, Johanna, 2009. The geography of case. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Case, pp. 479–493. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena and Zakharko, Taras, 2014. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Malchukov, Andrej and Richards, Marc (eds), Scales: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on Referential Hierarchies, pp. 7–43. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Choudhary, Kamal K., Schlesewsky, Matthias and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10: e0132819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Christiansen, Morten H. and Chater, Nick, 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 489–509.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard and Kuteva, Tania, 2013. Relativization strategies. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/s8Google Scholar

Croft, William, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, Kleinschmidt, Dave, Smith, Eric D. and Jaeger, T. Florian, 2011. Greenbergian universals, diachrony and statistical analysis. Linguistic Typology 15: 433–453.Google Scholar

Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul and Legendre, Géraldine, 2012. Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122: 306–329.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael, 2010a. Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word order frequencies. Linguistic Typology 14: 253–286.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael, 2010b. On the probability distribution of typological frequencies. In Ebert, Christian, Jäger, Gerhard and Michaelis, Jens (eds), The Mathematics of Language, pp. 29–35. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael, 2011. Understanding transition probabilities. Linguistic Typology 15: 415–431.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen and Velupillai, Viveka, 2013. The Perfect. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/68Google Scholar

Dediu, Dan and Cysouw, Michael, 2013. Some structural aspects of language are more stable than others: A comparison of seven methods. PLoS ONE 8: e55009.Google Scholar

Dediu, Dan and Ladd, Robert D., 2007. Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 10944–10949.Google Scholar

Dediu, Dan and Levinson, Stephen C., 2012. Abstract profiles of structural stability point to universal tendencies, family-specific factors, and ancient connections between languages. PLoS ONE 7: e45198.Google Scholar

Dediu, Dan and Levinson, Stephen C., 2013. On the antiquity of language: The reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (397): 1–17.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S., 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13: 257–292.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S., 2005a. Order of genitive and noun. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 350–353. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S., 2005b. Order of subject, object, and verb. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 330–341. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds), 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.infoGoogle Scholar

Dunn, Michael J., Greenhill, Simon J., Levinson, Stephen C. and Gray, Russell D., 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473: 79–82.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, 2003. Context, culture, and structuration in the languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 13–40.Google Scholar

Everett, Caleb, Blasi, Damián E. and Roberts, Seán G., 2015. Climate, vocal folds, and tonal languages: Connecting the physiological and geographic dots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 1322–1327.Google Scholar

François, Alexandre, 2014. Trees, waves and linkages: Models of language diversification. In Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, pp. 161–189. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steven T., Brink, Kimberly et al., 2013. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science 24: 1079–1088.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H., 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Language, pp. 73–113. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom, 2008. The Macro-Sudan Belt: Towards identifying a linguistic area in northern sub-Saharan Africa. In Heine, Bernd (ed.), A Linguistic Geography of Africa, pp. 151–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, Matthew L., Mayberry, Rachel I. and Ferreira, Victor S., 2013. Cognitive constraints on constituent order: Evidence from elicited pantomime. Cognition 129: 1–17.Google Scholar

Harmon, Luke J., Weir, Jason T., Brock, Chad D., Glor, Richard E. and Challenger, Wendell, 2008. GEIGER: Investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24: 129–131.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, 1998. How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20: 271–287.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A., 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania, 2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ilumäe, Anne-Mai, Reidla, Maere, Chukhryaeva, Marina et al., 2016. Human Y chromosome haplogroup N: A non-trivial time-resolved phylogeography that cuts across language families. The American Journal of Human Genetics 99: 163–173.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian, Graff, Peter, Croft, William and Pontillo, Daniel, 2011. Mixed effect models for genetic and areal dependencies in linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 281–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johanson, Lars, 1992. Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar

Johnson, Keith, 2008. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lupyan, Gary and Dale, Rick, 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5: e8559.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin, 2001. The definition and significance of linguistic areas: Methods, pitfalls, and possibilities (with special reference to the validity of South Asia as a linguistic area). In Bhaskararao, Peri and Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds), Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages: Contact, Convergence, and Typology (The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001), pp. 205–267. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Maslova, Elena, 2000. A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 4: 307–333.Google Scholar

Maslova, Elena, 2004. Dinamika tipologičeskix raspredelenij i stabil’nost’ jazykovyx tipov. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2004: 3–16.Google Scholar

Maslova, Elena, 2008. Meta-typological distributions. Language Typology and Universals 61: 199–207.Google Scholar

Maslova, Elena and Nikitina, Tatiana, 2007. Stochastic universals and dynamics of cross-linguistic distributions: The case of alignment types. Manuscript, Stanford University. http://anothersumma.net/Publications/Ergativity.pdfGoogle Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, 1993. Ergativity and linguistic geography. Australian Journal of Linguistics 13: 39–89.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, 1998. The Eurasian spread zone and the Indo-European dispersal. In Blench, Roger and Spriggs, Matthew (eds), Archaeology and Language, vol. II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses, pp. 220–266. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pagel, Mark and Meade, Andrew, 2013. BayesTraits V2: Software and manual. www.evolution.rdg.ac.uk/BayesTraitsV2Beta.htmlGoogle Scholar

R Development Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.orgGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Seán and Winters, James, 2013. Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PLoS ONE 8: e70902.Google Scholar

Ronquist, Fredrik and Huelsenbeck, John P., 2003. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19: 1572–1574.Google Scholar

Rootsi, S., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Baldovic, M. et al., 2007. A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics 15: 204–211.Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna, 1996. Word order type and alignment. Language Typology and Universals 49: 149–176.Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, Kaius, 2010. Word order in zero-marking languages. Studies in Language 34: 869–912.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah Grey and Kaufman, Terrence, 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter, 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 2006a. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 1–66.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 2006b. Semantics and pragmatics of grammatical relations in the Vaupés linguistic area. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 237–266.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds), 2006. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, Joseph H., 1916. Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar. New York: Ginn & Company.Google Scholar

Altimari, Francesco, 2011. Traces d’infinitifs anciens appartenant à l’albanais dans la langue arbërisht d’Italie. In Antoniadis-Bibicou, Hélène, Aymard, Maurice and Guillou, André (eds), L’homme et son environnement dans le Sud-Est européen: Actes du X^e Congrès de l’Association internationale du Sud-Est européen, pp. 445–455. Paris: Association Pierre Belon.Google Scholar

Andriotis, Nikolaos and Kourmoulis, Georgios, 1968. Questions de la linguistique balkanique et l’apport de la langue grecque. In Gălăbov, I. et al. (eds), Actes du Premier Congrès International des Études Balkaniques et Sud-est Européennes, vol. 6, pp. 21–30. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar

Asenova, Petja, 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie [Balkan Linguistics], second edition. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan, 1998a. Revisiting the Balkan and Meso-American linguistic areas. Language Sciences 20 (3): 259–270.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan, 1998b. Conclusions. In van der Auwera, Johan (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, pp. 813–836. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bailey, Guy, Maynor, Natalie and Cukor-Avila, Patricia, 1989. Variation in subject–verb concord in early Modern English. Language Variation and Change 1 (3): 285–300.Google Scholar

Ball, Christopher G., 2007. Out of the Park: Trajectories of Wauja (Xingu Arawak) Language and Culture. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Beck, David, 2000. Grammatical convergence and the genesis of diversity in the Northwest coast Sprachbund. Anthropological Linguistics 42: 147–213Google Scholar

Belić, Aleksandar, 1936. La linguistique balkanique aux congrès internationaux des linguistes. Revue Internationale des Etudes Balkaniques 2 (3/4): 167–171.Google Scholar

Belyavski-Frank, Masha, 2003. The Balkan Conditional in South Slavic. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar

Benor, Sarah Bunin, 2009. Lexical othering in Judezmo: How Ottoman Sephardim refer to non-Jews. In Bunis, David M. (ed.), Languages and Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jews, pp. 65–85. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute & Misgav Yerushalayim.Google Scholar

Bird, Norman, 1982. The Distribution of Indo-European Root Morphemes (A Checklist for Philologists). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Birnbaum, Henrik, 1968. Slavjanskie jazyki na Balkanax i ponjatie tak nazyvaemyx jazykovyx sojuzov. Glossa 2 (1): 70–92.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter, 2006. Linguistic areas, language contact and typology: Some implications from the case of Ethiopia as a linguistic area. In Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April and Vincent, Nigel (eds), Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, pp. 75–98. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Boretzky, Norbert, 1996. The new infinitive in Romani. Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Fifth Series 6: 1–51.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence and Smith-Stark, Thomas C., 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62: 530–570.Google Scholar

Chang, Will, Cathcart, Chundra, Hall, David and Garrett, Andrew, 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91: 194–244.Google Scholar

Demiraj, Shaban, 2004. Gjuhësi ballkanike, second edition. Tiranë: Akademia e Shkencave e Republikës së Shqipërise (Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërisë).Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W., 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dobreva, Iskra. 2016. Préstam panbalcanicos en judeoespañol / Panbalkanski zaemki v sefardski ezik. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sofia.Google Scholar

Donohue, Mark, 2012. Studying contact without detailed studies of the languages involved: A non-philological approach to language contact. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, 10–12 February 2012.Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B., 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32: 3–16.Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick, 2005. Areal linguistics and mainland Southeast Asia. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 181–206.Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick J., 2008. Transmission biases in linguistic epidemiology. Journal of Language Contact, Thema 2: 297–306.Google Scholar

Epps, Patience, 2006. The Vaupés melting pot: Tucanoan influence on Hup. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 267–289.Google Scholar

Feuillet, Jack, 2012. Linguistique comparée des langues balkaniques. Paris: Institut d’études slaves.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 1995. Persistence and change in Ottoman patterns of codeswitching in the Republic of Macedonia: Nostalgia, duress and language shift in contemporary Southeastern Europe. In Gorter, Durk et al. (eds), Summer School: Code-switching and Language Contact, pp. 58–67. Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 1996. The Turkish lexical element in the languages of the Republic of Macedonia from the Ottoman period to independence. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 32 (1): 133–150Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2000. After 170 years of Balkan linguistics: Whither the millennium? Mediterranean Language Review 12: 1–15.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2003. Language in Macedonia as an identity construction site. In Joseph, Brian, DeStefano, Johanna, Jacobs, Neil and Lehiste, Ilse (eds), When Languages Collide: Perspectives on Language Conflict, Language Competition, and Language Coexistence, pp. 257–295. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2005. From orientalism to democracy and back again. In Detrez, Raymond and Plas, Pieter (eds), Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence vs. Divergence, pp. 25–43. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2006a. Balkanizing the Balkan sprachbund: A closer look at grammatical permeability and feature distribution. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 201–219.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2006b. The Balkans as a linguistic area. In Brown, Keith (Editor-in-Chief), Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 657–672. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2007. Udvojuvanjeto na objektot vo balkanskite jazici vo minatoto i denes [Macedonian: Object reduplication in Balkan languages in the past and today]. In Topolińska, Zuzana et al. (eds), Klasika – Balkanistika – Paleoslavistika: Festschrift in Honor of the 85th Birthday and 60th Anniversary of Scholarly Activity of Acad. Petar Ilievski, pp. 235–249. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2008. Balkan Slavic dialectology and Balkan linguistics: Periphery as center. In Bethin, Christina (ed.), American Contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists, pp. 131–148. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2011a. The Balkan languages and Balkan linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 275–291.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2011b. Le multilinguisme en République de Macédoine et l’union balkanique aujourd’hui. In Antoniadis-Bibicou, Hélène, Aymard, Maurice and Guillou, André (eds), L’homme et son environnement dans le Sud-Est européen: Actes du X^e Congrès de l’Association internationale du Sud-Est européen, pp. 479–481. Paris: Association Pierre Belon.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2012. Conjunction calquing: A heartland Balkanism. In Kahl, Thede, Metzelin, Michael and Schaller, Helmut (eds), Balkanismen heute / Balkanisms Today / Balkanizmy segodnja, pp. 31–37. Vienna: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A., 2014. Languages are wealth: The Sprachbund as linguistic capital. In Lionnet, Florian, Carpenter, Kayla, David, Oana, Stark, Tammy, Wauters, Vivian and Sheil, Christine (eds), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A. and Joseph, Brian D., 2014. Lessons from Judezmo about the Balkan sprachbund and contact linguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 226: 3–23. Special issue on Jewish Language Contact, edited by Zuckermann, Ghil’ad.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A. and Joseph, Brian D., in press a. Non-nominative and depersonalized subjects in the Balkans: Areality vs. genealogy. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carey, Stephen Mark, Eythórsson, Thórhallur and Pat-El, Na’ama (eds), Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects within and across Languages and Language Families: The Reykjavík–Eyjafjallajökull Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor A. and Joseph, Brian D., in press b. The Balkan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gil, David, 2011. Obligatory vs. optional tense-aspect-mood marking. Paper presented at ICHL 20 (20th International Conference on Historical Linguistics), Osaka, 28 July 2011.Google Scholar

Gołąb, Zbigniew, 1976. On the mechanism of Slavic–Rumanian linguistic interference in the Balkans. In Butler, Thomas (ed.), Bulgaria, Past and Present: Studies in History, Literature, Economics, Music, Sociology, Folklore and Linguistics, pp. 296–309. Columbus, OH: AAASS.Google Scholar

Gołąb, Zbigniew, 1984. The Arumanian Dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: MANU.Google Scholar

Grannes, Alf, Hauge, Kjetil Rå and Süleymenoğlu, Hayriye, 2002. A Dictionary of Turkisms in Bulgarian. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Robert, 2000. The dialects of Macedonia and Montenegro: Random linguistic parallels or evidence of a sprachbund? Južnoslovenski Filolog 56: 295–300.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. and Wilson, R., 1971. Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan / Dravidian border in India. In Hymes, Dell (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, pp. 151–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hamp, Eric P., 1977. On some questions of areal linguistics. In Whistler, Kenneth, Van Valin, Robert D., Chiarello, Chris, Jaeger, Jeri J., Petruck, Miriam, Thompson, Henry, Javkin, Ronya and Woodbury, Anthony (eds), Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 279–282. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Hamp, Eric P., 1989. Yugoslavia crossroads of Sprachbünde. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 25 (1): 44–47.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, 1998. How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20 (3): 271–287.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, Martin (ed.), Language Typology and Language Universals, vol. 2, pp. 1492–1551. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haugen, Einar, 1966. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36: 280–297.Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey, 1984. Language contact and language change. Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 367–384.Google Scholar

Ilievski, Petar, 1972. Kon interpretacijata na modelot na udvoeniot objekt vo makedonskiot jazik. In Godišen zbornik, Filozofski fakultet na Univerzitetot Skopje, pp. 205–220. Reprinted in Ilievski, 1988, pp. 167–182.Google Scholar

Ilievski, Petar, 1988 [1973]. Balkanološki Lingvistički Studii. Skopje: Institut za makedonski Jazik.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman, 1931/1971. Harakteristike evrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza [Characteristics of the Eurasian sprachbund]. In Selected Writings, second edition, vol. 1, pp. 143–201. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reissued in paperback, 2009.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian, 1987. A fresh look at the Balkan sprachbund: Some observations on H. W. Schaller’s Die Balkansprachen. Mediterranean Language Review 3: 105–114.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 2000a. Textual authenticity: Evidence from Medieval Greek. In Herring, Susan C., van Reenen, Pieter and Schøsler, Lene (eds), Textual Parameters in Older Languages, pp. 309–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 2000b. Processes of spread for syntactic constructions in the Balkans. In Tzitzilis, Christos and Symeonidis, Charalambos (eds), Balkan Linguistik: Synchronie und Diachronie, pp. 139–150. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 2001a. Review of R. M. W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages. Journal of Linguistics 37: 180–186.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 2001b. Is Balkan comparative syntax possible? In Rivero, Maria L. and Ralli, Angela (eds), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, pp. 17–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 2003. The Balkan languages. In Frawley, William (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, second edition, pp. 194–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., 2010. Language contact in the Balkans. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, pp. 618–633. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. and Wallace, Rex E., 1987. Latin sum / Oscan súm, sim, esum. American Journal of Philology 108: 675–693.Google Scholar

Kodov, Hr., 1935. Ezikăt na trakijskite bălgari [The Language of the Thracian Bulgarians]. Sofia: Trakijskijăt naučen institut.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard, 1998. General preface. In van der Auwera, Johan (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, pp. v–vii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kopitar, Jernej, 1829. Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache. Jahrbücher der Literatur 46: 59–106.Google Scholar

Labov, William, 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83 (2): 344–387.Google Scholar

Leake, William Martin, 1814. Researches in Greece. London: John Booth.Google Scholar

Lindstedt, Jouko, 2000. Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In Gilbers, Dicky, Nerbonne, John and Schaeken, Jos (eds), Languages in Contact, pp. 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin, 1976. South Asia as a Linguistic Area. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin, 2001. The definition and significance of linguistic areas: Methods, pitfalls, and possibilities (with special reference to the validity of South Asia as a linguistic area). In Bhaskararao, P. and Subbarao, K. (eds), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001, pp. 205–268. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron, 2004. Romacilikanes: The Romani dialect of Parakalamos. Romani Studies 14 (1): 59–109.Google Scholar

Miklosich, Franz, 1861. Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 12: 1–70.Google Scholar

Mladenov, Stefan, 1939. Bălgarskijat ezik v svetlinata na balkanistika. Godišnik na Sofijskija Universitet, Istor.-filol. fakultet, 35.13.1ff.Google Scholar

Mufwene, Salikoko, 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Mufwene, Salikoko, 2004. Language birth and death. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 201–222.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, 1997. Modeling ancient population structures and movements in linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 359–284.Google Scholar

Nuckols, Mark, 2000. Examination of the case for a Central European Sprachbund of Czech, German, Hungarian and Slovak. MA thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar

Obolensky, Dimitri, 1971. The Byzantine Commonwealth. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela, 2013. The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reiter, Norbert, 1994. Grundzüge der Balkanologie: Ein Schritt in die Eurolinguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Reiter, Norbert, 1999. Von der Balkanologie zur Eurolinguistik. In Hinrichs, Uwe (ed.), Handbuch der Südosteuropa–Linguistik, pp. 19–26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Ringe, Donald A., 1992. On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82 (1): 1–110.Google Scholar

Ross, Malcolm, 2001. Contact-induced language change in north-west Melanesia. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, pp. 134–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sandfeld, Kristian, 1930. Linguistique balkanique. Paris: Klinksieck.Google Scholar

Sawicka, Irena, 1997. The Balkan Sprachbund in the Light of Phonetic Features. Toruń: Energeia.Google Scholar

Schaller, Helmut W., 1975. Die Balkansprachen: Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Schleicher, August, 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht. Bonn: König.Google Scholar

Seliščev, A., 1925. Des traits linguistiques communs aux langues balkaniques: Un balkanisme ancien en bulgare. Révue des Études Slaves 5: 38–57.Google Scholar

Sherzer, Joel, 1976. An Areal-Typological Study of American Indian Languages North of Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Solta, Georg R., 1980. Einführung in die Balkanlinguistik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Steinke, Klaus, 1999. Zur theoretischen Grundlegung der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. In Hinrichs, Uwe (ed.), Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, pp. 67–90. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, 2006. Europe as a linguistic area. In Brown, Keith et al. (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, pp. 278–295. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G., 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Terrence, 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Thumb, Albert, 1895. Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache: Grammatik, Texte, Glossar. Strasbourg: Trübner.Google Scholar

Trask, Robert Lawrence, 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S., 1923. Vavilonskaja bašnja i smešenie jazykov. [The tower of Babel and the confusion of languages]. Evrazijskij vremennik 3: 107–124.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S., 1930. Proposition 16. In de Boer, Cornelis, van Ginneken, Jacobus and van Hamel, Anton G. (eds), Actes du Premier Congrès International des Linguistes à La Haye, du 10–15 Avril 1928, pp. 17–18. Leiden, the Netherlands: A. W. Sijthoff.Google Scholar

Tuite, Kevin, 1999. The myth of the Caucasian sprachbund: The case of ergativity. Lingua 108: 1–26.Google Scholar

Vermeer, Willem, 1992. Serbs and Albanians in Yugoslavia. Yearbook of European Studies 5: 101–124.Google Scholar

Vinožito, , 2006. Bukvar/Anagnōstiko [‘Primer’ Macedonian/Greek]. Thessaloniki: Batavia.Google Scholar

WALS, 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wexler, Paul, 1981. Jewish interlinguistics: Facts and conceptual framework. Language 57: 99–149.Google Scholar

Whitney, William D., 1868. Language and the Study of Language: Twelve Lectures on the Principles of Linguistic Science. New York: C. Scribner & Co.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Dixon, R. M. W., 2006. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, W. Sidney, 1987. Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Babel, Molly, Garrett, Andrew, Houser, Michael J. and Toosarvandani, Maziar, 2013. Descent and diffusion in language diversification: A study in Western Numic dialectology. International Journal of American Linguistics 79: 445–489.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, 2015. Distributional Typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, second edition, pp. 901–924. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bladon, Anthony, 1986. Phonetics for hearers. In McGregor, Graham (ed.), Language for Hearers, pp. 1–24. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds), 2009. Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2002. Notes on Yurok glottalized consonants. In Buszard-Welcher, Laura and Hinton, Leanne (eds), Proceedings of the Meeting of the Hokan-Penutian Workshop: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, report 11, pp. 1–18. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2003. The phonology of Yurok glottalized sonorants: Segmental fission under syllabification. International Journal of American Linguistics 69: 371–396.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2006. A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2007. The importance of typology in explaining recurrent sound patterns. Linguistic Typology 11: 107–113.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2008. Natural and unnatural sound patterns: A pocket field guide. In Willems, Klaas and De Cuypere, Ludovic (eds), Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, pp. 121–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2009a. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 48: 264–273.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2009b. Structure-preserving sound change: A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian. In Adelaar, Alexander and Pawley, Andrew (eds), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Bob Blust, pp. 33–49. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette, 2015. Evolutionary Phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, pp. 485–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette and Grawunder, Sven, 2009. *Kl > Tl sound change in Germanic and elsewhere: Descriptions, explanations, and implications. Linguistic Typology 13: 267–303.Google Scholar

Blust, Robert, 1991. Patterns of sound change in the Austronesian languages. In Baldi, Philip (ed.), Patterns of Change, Change of Patterns: Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, pp. 129–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Blust, Robert, 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Li, Paul J. K. (eds), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, pp. 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar

Blust, Robert, 2009. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Blust, Robert, 2013. The Austronesian Languages, revised edition. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Boas, Franz, 1911. Introduction. In Boas, Franz (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages, part 1, pp. 5–83. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Boas, Franz, 1920. The classification of American languages. American Anthropologist 22: 367–376.Google Scholar

Boas, Franz, 1929. Classification of American Indian Languages. Language 5: 1–7.Google Scholar

Bowern, Claire and Koch, Harold (eds), 2004. Australian Languages: Classification and the Comparative Method. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, second edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence and Smith-Stark, Thomas, 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62: 530–570.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle and Langacker, Ronald, 1978. Proto-Aztecan vowels: part I. International Journal of American Linguistics 44: 85–102Google Scholar

Conathan, Lisa, 2004. Linguistic Ecology of Northwestern California: Contact, Functional Convergence and Dialectology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Cresci, Michela, 2013. Camuno Sound Patterns. PhD dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, New York.Google Scholar

Dediu, Dan and Ladd, D. Robert, 2007. Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 10944–10949.Google Scholar

Diffloth, Gérard, 1976. Minor-syllable vocalism in Senoic languages. In Jenner, Philip N., Thompson, Laurence C. and Starosta, Stanley (eds), Austroasiatic Studies, vol. I, pp. 229–248. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication, vol. 13. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W., 2002. The Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds), 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.Google Scholar

Edmondson, Jerold and Gregerson, Kenneth (eds), 1993. Tonality in Austronesian Languages. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar

Egurtzegi, Ander, 2013. Back vowel fronting in Souletin Basque. Manuscript, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Egurtzegi, Ander, 2014. Towards a Phonetically Grounded Diachronic Phonology of Basque. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Emeneau, Murray B., 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32: 3–16.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Fallon, Paul D., 2002. The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Faye, C. U., 1923–1925. The influence of the ‘Hlonipa’ on the Zulu clicks. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 3: 757–782.Google Scholar

Friedman, Victor, 2004. Geg Albanian and Balkan dialectology. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature and Folklore.Google Scholar

Friedrich, Paul, 1971. Dialectal variation in Tarascan phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 37: 164–187.Google Scholar

Friedrich, Paul, 1975. A Phonology of Tarascan. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology.Google Scholar

Goddard, Ives, 1979. Comparative Algonquian. In Campbell, Lyle and Mithun, Marianne (eds), The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, pp. 70–132. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Haas, Mary R., 1976. The Northern Californian Linguistic Area. In Langdon, Margaret and Silver, Shirley (eds), Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages, pp. 347–359. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Hajek, John and Stevens, Mary, 2004. Tonal activity in Kara, an Austronesian language spoken in New Britain. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, Macquarie University, Sydney, December 8 to 10, 2004. Australian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.Google Scholar

Hall, Alan T., 1997. The historical development of retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 102: 203–221.Google Scholar

Hamp, Eric, 1996. On the Indo-European origins of the retroflexes in Sanskrit. Journal of the American Oriental Society 116: 719–723.Google Scholar

Hansson, Gunnar, 1999. Remains of a submerged continent: Preaspiration in the languages of Northwest Europe. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, pp. 157–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haudricourt, André-Georges, 1965. Les mutations consonantiques des occlusives initiales en mon-khmer. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 60: 160–172.Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey, 1978. Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Helgason, Pétur, 2002. Preaspiration in the Nordic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Henderson, Michael M. T. Some ‘Indic’ features in Pashto. Manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar

Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph, 2006. On the typology of final laryngeal neutralization: Evolutionary Phonology and laryngeal realism. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 205–216.Google Scholar

Jansen, Wouter, 2004. Laryngeal Contrast and Phonetic Voicing: A Laboratory Phonology Approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. PhD dissertation, University of Gröningen.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian, 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian, 1992. The Balkan languages. In Bright, William (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, pp. 153–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul, 2006. The amphichronic problem vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 217–236.Google Scholar

Kossmann, Maarten, 2012. Pharyngealization and the vowel system of Tasawaq (Northern Songhay). Nordic Journal of African Studies 21: 21–33.Google Scholar

Kuhl, Patricia K., 1991. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50 (2): 93–107.Google Scholar

Kuhl, Patricia K., 2000. Language, mind, and brain: Experience alters perception. In Gazzaniga, Michael S. (ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences, second edition, pp. 99–115. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kuhl, Patricia K. and Iverson, Paul, 1995. Linguistic experience and the ‘perceptual magnet effect’. In Strange, Winifried (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, pp. 121–154. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar

Kuhl, Patricia K., Stevens, Erica, Hayashi, Akiko et al., 2006. Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science 9, F13–F21.Google Scholar

Kuhl, Patricia K., Williams, Karen A., Lacerda, Francisco, Stevens, Kenneth N. and Lindblom, Björn, 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–608.Google Scholar

Labov, William, 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83: 344–387.Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian, 1996. Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Longerich, Linda, 1998. Acoustic Conditioning for the RUKI Rule. Master’s thesis, Department of Linguistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian, 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian, 2013a. Glottalized consonants. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/7Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian, 2013b. Presence of uncommon consonants. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/19Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian, 2013c. Front rounded vowels. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/11Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian, 2013d. Tone. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/13Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian and Precoda, Kristin, 1989. Updating UPSID. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Suppl. 1, 86: S19.Google Scholar

Matisoff, James A., 2006. Genetic vs. contact relationship: Prosodic diffusion in South-East Asian languages. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 291–327.Google Scholar

Posner, Rebecca, 1995. Contact, social variants, parameter setting, and pragmatic function: An example from the history of French syntax. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Language Change under Contact Conditions, pp. 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul, 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Remijsen, B., 2003. Word-prosodic Systems of Raja Ampat Languages. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Rivierre, Jean-Claude, 1993. Tonogenesis in New Caledonia. In Edmondson, and Gregerson, (eds), pp. 155–173.Google Scholar

Ross, Malcolm, 1993. Tonogenesis in the North Huon Gulf Chain. In Edmondson, and Gregerson, (eds), pp. 133–145.Google Scholar

Round, Erich R., 2011. Apical obstruents in pre-Proto-Tangkic and the origins of the non-zero absolutive. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 32: 109–121.Google Scholar

Śarmā, Devīdatta, 2004. Tribal Languages of Ladakh, part III. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.Google Scholar

Simonet, Miquel, 2014. Phonetic consequences of dynamic cross-linguistic interference in proficient bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics 43: 26–37.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Terrence, 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Thordarson, Fridrik, 2009. Ossetic Language. In Encyclopedia Iranica OnLine. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/osseticGoogle Scholar

Thurgood, Graham, 1999. From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand Years of Language Contact and Change: With an Appendix of Chamic Reconstructions and Loanwords. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, no. 28. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergei, 1939. Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Acta Linguistica 1: 81–89.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter, 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tsao, Feng-Ming, Liu, Huai-Mai and Kuhl, Patricia K., 2006. Perception of native and non-native affricate-fricative contrasts: Cross-language tests on adults and infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120: 2285–2294.Google Scholar

Vaux, Bert, 2002. There was and wasn’t a Balkan Sprachbund. Paper presented at AIEA, Würzburg.Google Scholar

Vermeer, Willem R., 1979. Proto-Slavonic *u in Kajkavian. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 22 (1): 171–177.Google Scholar

Wagner, Heinrich, 1964. Nordeuropäische Lautgeographie. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 29: 224–298.Google Scholar

Weinreich, Uriel, 1953. Language in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Wells, John C., 1982. Accents of English, three volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wong, Patrick C. M., Chandrasekaran, Barath and Zheng, Jing, 2012. The derived allele of ASPM is associated with lexical tone perception. PLoS ONE 7 (4): e34243.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning, 1986. Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Anderson, Gregory D. S., 2005. The velar nasal (ŋ). In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 42–45.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan, 1998. Conclusions. In van der Auwera, Johan (ed.) with Ó Baoill, Dónall, Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 813–836.Google Scholar

Bechert, Johannes, [1981] 1998. Notiz über eine Möglichkeit, die historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft zu vervollständigen, oder: Lesefrüchte zur Verbesserung Mitteleuropas und anderer Weltgegenden. In Boeder, Winfried (ed.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 13–16. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Calabrese, Andrea and Leo Wetzels, W. (eds), 2009. Loan Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2006. Areal linguistics: A closer scrutiny. In Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April and Vincent, Nigel (eds), Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, pp. 1–30. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Chirikba, Viacheslav, 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In Muysken, Pieter (ed.), From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics, pp. 25–94. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard, 1993. Language universals and linguistic typology: Data-bases and explanations. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46: 3–14.Google Scholar

Décsy, Gyula, 2000a. The Linguistic Identity of Europe, part 1: The 62 Languages of Europe Classified in Functional Zones. Bloomington, IN: EUROLINGUA.Google Scholar

Décsy, Gyula, 2000b. The Linguistic Identity of Europe, part 2: Macrolinguistics and Demostatistics of Europe. Bloomington, IN: EUROLINGUA.Google Scholar

Ewels, Andrea-Eva, 2009. Areallinguistik und Sprachtypologie im Ostseeraum: Die phonologisch relevante Vokal- und Konsonantenquantität. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2005. (a) Fixed stress locations; (b) Weight-sensitive stress; (c) Weight factors in weight-sensitive stress systems; (d) Rhythm types. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 62–77.Google Scholar

Haarmann, Harald, 1976a. Grundzüge der Sprachtypologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar

Haarmann, Harald, 1976b. Aspekte der Arealtypologie: Die Problematik der europäischen Sprachbünde. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Hajek, John, 2005. Vowel nasalization. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 46–49.Google Scholar

Hall, T. Alan, 2011. Phonologie: Eine Einführung. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, Martin et al. (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals, pp. 1492–1510. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds), 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), 1999. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

IPA, 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman, [1930] 1971. Selected Writings. Phonological Studies. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd and van der Auwera, Johan (eds), 2011. The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian, 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lewy, Ernst, [1942] 1964. Der Bau der europäischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian, 2005. (a) Consonant inventories; (b) Vowel quality inventories; (c) Consonant–vowel ratio; (d) Voicing in plosives and fricatives; (e) Voicing and gaps in plosive systems; (f) Uvular consonants; (g) Glottalized consonants; (h) Lateral consonants; (i) Front rounded vowels; (j) Syllable structure; (k) Tone; (l) Absence of common consonants; (m) Presence of uncommon consonants. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), pp. 10–41, 50–61, 78–85.Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron, 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Matras, Yaron and Sakel, Jeanette (eds), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, pp. 31–74. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April M. S. and Vincent, Nigel, 2006. Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

van Pottelberge, Jeroen, 2005. Ist jedes grammatische Verfahren Ergebnis eines Grammatikalisierungsprozesses? Fragen zur Entwicklung des am-Progressivs. In Leuschner, Torsten, Mortelmans, Tanja and De Groodt, Sarah (eds), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, pp. 169–191. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Sakel, Jeanette, 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Matras, Yaron and Sakel, Jeanette (eds), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, pp. 15–30. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Stadnik, Elena, 2002. Die Palatalisierung in den Sprachen Europas und Asiens: Eine areal-typologische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, 2006. Europe as a linguistic area. In Brown, Keith et al. (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, pp. 278–295. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, 2007. Being monosyllabic in Europe: An areal-typological project in statu nascendi. In Ammann, Andreas (ed.), Linguistics Festival: May 2006, Bremen, pp. 97–134. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, 2010. Phonologie und areal Europa. In Hinrichs, Uwe (ed.), Handbuch der Eurolinguistik, pp. 597–622. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, Urdze, Aina and Otsuka, Hitomi, 2010. Europäische Liquiden: Rhotische und laterale Phoneme – sprachgeographisch betrachtet. In Stroh, Cornelia (ed.), Von Katastrophen, Zeichen und vom Ursprung der menschlichen Sprache: Würdigung eines vielseitigen Linguisten, Wolfgang Wildgen zur Emeritierung, pp. 93–114. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, Urdze, Aina and Otsuka, Hitomi, 2011. The sounds of Europe: Velar and post-velar fricatives in areal perspective. Lingua Posnaniensis 53 (1): 87–108.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, Urdze, Aina and Otsuka, Hitomi, 2012. Seltene Klänge: Zu den Marginalien der arealen Phonologie Europas. In Stroh, Cornelia (ed.), Neues aus der Bremer Linguistikwerkstatt: Aktuelle Themen und Projekte, pp. 1–22. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Ternes, Elmar, 1998. Lauttypologie der Sprachen Europas. In Boeder, Winfried et al. (eds), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 139–152. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Ternes, Elmar, 2010. Phonetische Eigenschaften der Sprachen Europas. In Hinrichs, Uwe (ed.), Handbuch der Eurolinguistik, pp. 577–596. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah Grey, 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Uffmann, Christian, 2015. Loanword adaptation. In Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, pp. 644–666. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Velupillai, Viveka, 2012. An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Wagner, Heinrich, 2002 [1964]. Nordeuropäische Lautgeographie. In Benes, Birgit, Fromherz, Uta and Gröbli, Fredy (eds), Heinrich Wagner: Beiträge zur typologischen Sprachgeographie, pp. 19–88. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Alleyne, Mervyn, 1980. Comparative Afro-American: An Historical-comparative Study of English-based Afro-American Dialects of the New World. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

Altmann, Heidi, 2006. The Perception and Production of Second Language Stress: A Cross-linguistic Experimental Study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar

Altmann, Heidi and Kabak, Bari, 2011. Second language phonology. In Kula, Nancy C., Botma, Bert and Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds), The Continuum Companion to Phonology, pp. 298–319. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Benedict, Paul K., 1948. Tonal systems in Southeast Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society 68: 18491.Google Scholar

Broselow, Ellen, 2009. Stress adaptation in loanword phonology: Perception and learnability. In Boersma, Paul and Hamann, Silke (eds), Phonology in Perception, pp. 191–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Buckley, Eugene, 2013. Prosodic systems in Southeastern Pomo stress. Talk presented at the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Boston, January 2013.Google Scholar

Bye, Patrick, 2004. Evolutionary typology and Scandinavian pitch accent. Manuscript, University of Tromsø/CASTL.Google Scholar

Callaghan, Catherine A., 1964. A Grammar of the Lake Miwok Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle, 2006. Areal linguistics: A closer scrutiny. In Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April and Vincent, Nigel (eds), Linguistic Areas: Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective, pp. 1–31. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Capell, Arthur, 1962. Some Linguistic Types in Australia. Oceania Linguistic Monographs, no. 7. University of Sydney.Google Scholar

Capell, Arthur and Hinch, Heather E., 1970. Maung Grammar: Text and Vocabulary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Carter, Hazel, 1973. Tonal data in comparative Bantu. African Language Studies 14: 3652.Google Scholar

Clements, George N. and Goldsmith, John, 1984. Autosegmental studies in Bantu tone: Introduction. In Clements, George and Goldsmith, John (eds), Autosegmental Studies in Bantu Tone, pp. 1–17. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Conathan, Lisa, 2004. The Linguistic Ecology of Northwestern California: Contact, Functional Convergence, and Dialectology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Davies, J., 1989. Umbugarla: A Sketch Grammar. BA (Hons) thesis, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar

Davis, Stuart, Tsujimura, Natsuko and Tu, Jung-yueh, 2012. Toward a taxonomy of loanword prosody. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 11: 13–39Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W., 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dogil, Grzegorz, 1999a. Baltic languages. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, pp. 877–896.Google Scholar

Dogil, Grzegorz, 1999b. West Slavic [languages]. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, pp. 813–838.Google Scholar

Dresher, B. Elan and Lahiri, Aditi, 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22 (2): 251–286.Google Scholar

Eather, Bronwyn, 1990. A Grammar of Nakkara (Central Arnhem Land Coast). PhD dissertation, Australian National University. Reprinted in 2011 in series Outstanding Grammars from Australia, vol. 7, LINCOM.Google Scholar

Eckman, Fred R. and Iverson, Gregory, 2015. Second language acquisition and phonological change. In Honeybone, and Salmons, (eds), pp. 637–643.Google Scholar

Gårding, Eva, 1977. Scandinavian Word Accents. Lund: Travaux de L’Institut de Linguistique de Lund.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob, 2010a. A typology of stress patterns. In van der Hulst, et al. (eds), A Survey of Word Accentual Systems in the Languages of the World, pp. 647–666.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob, 2010b. An overview of word stress in Australian Aboriginal languages. In van der Hulst, et al. (eds), A Survey of Word Accentual Systems in the Languages of the World, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2005a. Fixed stress locations. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 62–65.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2005b. Weight-sensitive stress. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 66–69.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2005c. Weight factors in weight-sensitive stress systems. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 70–73.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2005d. Rhythm types. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 74–77.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2009. StressTyp: A database for word accentual patterns in the world’s languages. In Everaert, Martin and Musgrave, Simon (eds), The Use of Databases in Cross-linguistic Research, pp. 235–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry, 2014. The separation of accent and rhythm: Evidence from StressTyp. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, pp. 119–148.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob, van der Hulst, Harry and Visch, Ellis (eds), 1996. Stress Patterns of the World. HIL Publications, vol. 2. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, John, 1988. Prosodic trends in the Bantu languages. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval (eds), Autosegmental Studies on Pitch Accent, pp. 81–94. Dordrecht: Foris publications.Google Scholar

Golla, Victor, 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew, 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch accent: Toward a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, pp. 83–118.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew, 2016. Metrical incoherence: Diachronic sources and synchronic analysis. In Heinz, Jeff, Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry (eds), Dimensions of Phonological Stress, pp. 9–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew and Luna, Edmundo, 2004. An intergenerational investigation of Hupa stress. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 105–117. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Greiner, Paul, 1994. Review of Salmons 1994. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 6 (2): 259–266.Google Scholar

Haraguchi, Shoshuke, 1979. The Tone Pattern of Japanese: An Autosegmental Theory of Tonology. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Harvey, Mark, 2001. A Grammar of Limilngan. Pacific Linguistics, vol. 516. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds), 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haugen, Einer, 1970. The language history of Scandinavia: A profile of problems. In Beneddiktsson, Hreinn (ed.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics, pp. 41–86. Reykjavik: Visindafelag.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce, 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Haynie, Hannah Jane, 2012. Studies in the History and Geography of California Languages. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey, 1978. Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: AIATSIS.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, 1973. Pidgin-Sprachen im Bantu-Bereich. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond, 1997. Assessing the relative status of languages in medieval Ireland. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Studies in Middle English Linguistics, pp. 181–205. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond, 2010. Language contact: Reassessment and reconsideration. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, pp. 1–28. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond, 2014. The Sound Structure of Modern Irish. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hinton, Leanne, 1991. Takic and Yuman: A study in phonological convergence. International Journal of American Linguistics 57 (2): 133–157.Google Scholar

Hoddinott, W. G. and Kofod, F. M., 1988. The Ngankikurungkurr Language (Daly river area, Northern Territory). Pacific Linguistics, vol. D-77. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds), 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hore, Michael, 1981. Syllable length and stress in Nunggubuyu. In Waters, B. (ed.), AAB SIL Working papers, series A5, pp. 1–62.Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio, 1999. Basque accentuation. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, pp. 947–994.Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio, 2000. On system-driven sound change: Accent shift in Markina Basque. Lingua 110: 99–129.Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio, 2003. From phrase-final to post-initial accent in Western Basque. In Fikkert, Paula and Jacobs, Heike (eds), Development in Prosodic Systems, pp. 249–281. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio, 2007. Historical convergence and divergence in Basque accentuation. In Riad, Tomas and Gussenhoven, Carlos (eds), Tones and Tunes, pp. 291–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio, 2012. Two Basque accentual systems and word-prosodic typology. Lingua 122: 1335–1351.Google Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio, Elordieta, Gorka, Gaminde, Iñaki and Smiljanic, Rajka, 2002. From pitch accent to stress accent in Basque. In Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha (eds), Laboratory Phonology, vol. 7, pp. 547–584. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, 1996. Primary accent is non-metrical. Revista di Linguistica 9 (1): 1–119.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), 1999a. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, 1999b. Word accent. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, pp. 3–116.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, 2010. Word accent systems in the languages of Europe. In van der Hulst, et al. (eds), A Survey of Word Accentual Systems in the Languages of the World, pp. 429–508.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, 2012. Deconstructing stress. Lingua 122: 1494–1521.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), 2014a. Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, 2014b. Word stress: Past, present and future. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, pp. 3–55.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, 2014c. Representing rhythm. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues, pp. 325–365.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, Goedemans, Rob and van Zanten, Ellen (eds), 2010. A Survey of Word Accentual Systems in the Languages of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry and Hellmuth, Sam, 2010. Word accent systems in the Middle Eastern languages. In van der Hulst, et al. (eds), A Survey of Word Accentual Systems in the Languages of the World, pp. 615–648.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, Hendriks, Bernadet and van de Weijer, Jeroen, 1999. A survey of European word prosodic systems. In van der Hulst, (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, pp. 425–476.Google Scholar

van der Hulst, Harry, Rice, Keren and Wetzels, Leo, 2010. Word accent systems in the languages of Middle America. In van der Hulst, et al. (eds), A Survey of Word Accentual Systems in the Languages of the World, pp. 313–380.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M., 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress. In Hyman, Larry M. (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent, pp. 37–82. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar