Abraham, W. 1991. ‘The grammaticalization of the German modal particles’, in Traugott, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 331–80.Google Scholar

Abraham, W. 1993. ‘Einleitung zum Thema dieses Bandes. Grammatikalisierung und Reanalyse: Einander ausschließende oder ergänzende Begriffe?’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13(1–2): 7–26.Google Scholar

Bisang, W. 2004. ‘Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia’, in Bisang, , Himmelmann, and Wiemer, (eds.), pp. 109–38.Google Scholar

Bisang, W. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 245–77.Google Scholar

Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P. and Wiemer, B. (eds.) 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boland, J. H. G. 2006. ‘Aspect, tense, and modality: Theory, typology, acquisition’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Bruyn, A. 1995a. ‘Relative clauses in early Sranan’, in Arends, J. (ed.), The early stages of creolization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–202.Google Scholar

Bruyn, A. 1995b. Grammaticalization in creoles: The development of determiners and relative clauses in Sranan. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT).Google Scholar

Bruyn, A. 1996. ‘On identifying instances of grammaticalization in creole languages’, in Baker, Ph. and Syea, A. (eds.), Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages. London: University of Westminster Press, pp. 29–46.Google Scholar

Bruyn, A. 1998. ‘What can this be?’, in Schmid, M. S., Austin, J. R. and Stein, D. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1997: Selected papers from the 13th International conference on historical linguistics, Düsseldorf, 10–17 August 1997. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. 2003. ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 602–23.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L., Haiman, J. and Noonan, M. (eds.), 2001. Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Studies presented to Sandra Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2001. ‘A note on mood, modality, tense and aspect affixes in Turkish’, in Taylan, E. E. (ed.), The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–59.Google Scholar

Crass, J. 2002. ‘Die Grammatikalisierung des Verbes “sagen” im Beria’, unpublished MS, University of Mainz.Google Scholar

De Smet, H. 2010. ‘Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 75–104.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. 2005. The acquisition of complex sentences (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 105). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dik, S. 1997. The theory of functional grammar, part 1: The structure of the clause, 2nd rev. edn, ed. Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ebert, K. 1991. ‘Vom Verbum dicendi zur Konjunktion: Ein Kapitel universaler Grammatikentwicklung’, in Bisang, W. and Rinderknecht, P. (eds.), Von Europa bis Ozeanien – von der Antonymie zum Relativsatz: Gedenkschrift für Meinrad Scheller. Zurich: Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Zürich, pp. 77–95.Google Scholar

Frajzyngier, Z. 1996. Grammaticalization of the complex sentence: A case study in Chadic (Studies in Language Companion Series 32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gisborne, N. 2011. ‘Constructions, word grammar, and grammaticalization’, Cognitive Linguistics 22(1): 155–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gisborne, N. and Patten, A. 2011. ‘Construction grammar and grammaticalization’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 92–104.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip’, Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1975. ‘Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement’, in Li, Ch. N. (ed.), Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 149–88.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1991. ‘The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew’, in Traugott, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 257–310.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 2006. ‘Multiple routes to clause union: The diachrony of syntactic complexity’, unpublished MS, University of Oregon.Google Scholar

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

Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B. 2009. ‘Complexity via expansion’, in Givón, T. and Shibatani, M. (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hengeveld, K. 1989. ‘Layers and operators in Functional Grammar’, Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hengeveld, K. 2011. ‘The grammaticalization of tense and aspect’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 580–94.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, K. and Lachlan Mackenzie, J. 2008. Functional discourse grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Himmelmann, N. P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?’, in Bisang, , Himmelmann, and Wiemer, (eds.), pp. 21–42.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J. 1982. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, P. J. 1987. ‘Emergent grammar’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–57.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klamer, M. 2000. ‘How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers’, Lingua 110: 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuryłowicz, J. [1965] 1976. ‘The evolution of grammatical categories’. Reprinted in Kuryłowicz, J., Esquisses linguistiques, vol. 2, Munich: Fink, pp. 38–54.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Ch. [1982] 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Lord, C. D. 1976. ‘Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa’, in Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. and Mufwene, S. S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 179–91.Google Scholar

Meillet, A. 1912. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12: 384–400.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. 2009. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narrog, H. 2010. ‘The order of meaningful elements in the Japanese verbal complex’, Morphology 20(1): 205–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.) 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Noël, D. 2007. ‘Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory’, Functions of Language 14(2):177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Neil, W. 1977. ‘Clause adjunction in Old English’, General Linguistics 17: 199–211.Google Scholar

Patten, A. 2012. The English it-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plag, I. 1993. Sentential complementation in Sranan: On the formation of an English-based creole language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Plag, I. 1994. ‘On the diachrony of creole complementizers: The development of Sranan taki and dati’, Amsterdam Creole Studies 11: 40–65.Google Scholar

Plag, I. 1995. ‘The emergence of taki as a complementizer in Sranan: On substrate influence, universals, and gradual creolization’, in Arends, J. (ed.), The early stages of creolization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–48.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 45–73.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shi, Y. and Li, Ch. N. 2002. ‘The establishment of the classifier system and the grammaticalization of the morphosyntactic particle de in Chinese’, Language Sciences 24: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1988. ‘Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 406–16.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 2003. ‘Constructions in grammaticalization’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 624–47.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 2008. ‘The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns’, in Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.) 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.) 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trousdale, G. 2008. ‘Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English’, in Trousdale, G. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Constructional approaches to English Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trousdale, G. 2012. ‘Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions’, in Davidse, K. et al. (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–98.Google Scholar

van Bogaert, J. 2011. ‘I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization’, Linguistics 49(2): 295–332.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 1993. The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2009. ‘Feature Economy in the linguistic cycle’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liaison’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 43–55.Google Scholar

Wu, Zoe. 2004. Grammaticalization and language change in Chinese. London: Routledge Curzon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, C. L. 2003. ‘Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English’, English Language and Linguistics 7: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 2006. ‘Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian’, Diachronica 23: 231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 2008. ‘Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change’, in Eythórsson, Th. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burridge, K. 1998. ‘From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: The curious case of Pennsylvania German wotte’, in Hogg, R. M. and van Bergen, L. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1995: Selected papers from the 12th International conference on historical linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, L. 1991. ‘Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications’, in Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 285–99.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 2001. ‘What’s wrong with grammaticalization?’, Language Sciences 23: 113–61.Google Scholar

Doyle, A. 2002. ‘Yesterday’s affixes as today’s clitics’, in Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, N. and Wilkins, D. 2000. ‘In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages’, Language 76: 546–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, O., Norde, M. and Perridon, H. (eds.) 2004. Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, S. 2000. ‘Remarks on the de-grammaticalisation of infinitival to in present-day American English’, in Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. and Stein, D. (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–86.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22: 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2000. ‘Why can’t we talk to each other?’, Lingua 110: 235–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2004. ‘On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization’, in Fischer, , Norde, and Perridon, (eds.), pp. 17–44.Google Scholar

Hay, J. 2002. ‘From speech perception to morphology: Affix order revisited’, Language 78: 527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, J. and Plag, I. 2004. ‘What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 565–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B. 2003. ‘On degrammaticalization’, in Blake, B. J. and Burridge, K. (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–79.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. 2008. Germanic future constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, R. D. 2001. ‘Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization’, Language Sciences 23: 265–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2012. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 15–50.Google Scholar

Kuteva, T. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 1990. ‘How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution’, Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, C. [1982] 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo. 1988. ‘From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives’, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340–51.Google Scholar

Méndez Dosuna, J. 1997. ‘Fusion, fission and relevance in language change: De-univerbation in Greek morphology’, Studies in Language 21: 577–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narrog, H. 2007. ‘Exaptation, grammaticalization, and reanalysis’, California Linguistic Notes 32: 1–25.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Norde, M. 2001. ‘Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change’, Language Sciences 23: 231–64.Google Scholar

Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norde, M. 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies’, in Stathi, K., Gehweiler, E. and König, E. (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–50.Google Scholar

Ohala, J.J. 1993. ‘The phonetics of sound change’, in Jones, C. (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. Longman: London, pp. 237–78.Google Scholar

Plank, F. 2000. ‘Morphological re-activation and phonological alternations: Evidence for voiceless restructuring in German’, in Lahiri, A. (ed.), Analogy, levelling, markedness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 171–91.Google Scholar

Rissanen, M. 1997. ‘Whatever happened to the Middle English indefinite pronouns?’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 513–29.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.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

Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Diachrony and cartography: Paths of grammaticalization and the clausal hierarchy’, in Brugè, L. et al. (eds.), Functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. VII. Oxford University Press, pp. 351–65.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tabor, W. and Traugott, E. C. 1998. ‘Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization’, in Giacalone Ramat, A. and Hopper, P. J. (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–72.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1989. ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change’, Language 65: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Willis, D. 2000. ‘Verb movement in Slavonic conditionals’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 322–48.Google Scholar

Willis, D. 2007. ‘Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization’, Linguistics 45: 271–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Willis, D. 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: Evidence from Slavonic’, in Stathi, K., Gehweiler, E. and König, E. (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–77.Google Scholar

Willis, D. 2016. ‘Exaptation and degrammaticalization within an acquisition-based model of abductive reanalysis’, in Norde, M. and van de Velde, F. (eds.), Exaptation and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ziegeler, D. 2004. ‘Redefining unidirectionality: Is there life after modality?’, in Fischer, , Norde, and Perridon, (eds.), 115–35.Google Scholar

Boesch, C. 1993. ‘Aspects of transmission of tool use in wild chimpanzees’, in Gibso, K. and Ingold, T. (eds.), Tools, language, and cognition in human evolution. Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–83.Google Scholar

Breivik, L. 1983. Existential there: A synchronic and diachronic study. Bergen: Department of English, University of Bergen.Google Scholar

Browne, W. 1974. ‘The problem of clitic placement in Serbo-Croatian’, in Brecht, R. and Chvany, C. (eds.), Slavic transformational syntax, vol. 10. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Materials, pp. 36–52.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, E.-D. 2004. A grammar of Dene Suline (Chipewyan) (Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Special Athabaskan Number Memoir 17). Winnipeg: Algonkian & Iroquoian Linguistics.Google Scholar

Danto, A. 1983. The transfiguration of the commonplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Darmesteter, A. 1887. La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. Paris: Delagrave.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1970. ‘Olgolo syllable structure and what they are doing about it’, Linguistic Inquiry 1: 273–6.Google Scholar

Ellegard, A. 1953. The auxiliary DO: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almkvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Faltz, L. 1998. The Navajo verb. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Fleischman, S. 1992. ‘Discourse and diachrony: The rise and fall of Old French si’, in Gerritsen, M. and Stein, D. (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 433–73.Google Scholar

Franks, S. 1998. ‘Clitics in Slavic’, paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, IN, June.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gould, S. and Vrba, E. 1982. ‘Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form’, Paleobiology 8: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gregerson, K. 1984. ‘Pharynx symbolism in Rengao phonology’, Lingua 62: 209–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, J. 1974. Targets and syntactic change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, J. 1998. ‘Possible sources of infixation in Khmer’, Studies in Language 22: 595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, J. 1994. ‘Ritualization and the development of language’, in Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, J. 2011. Cambodian: Khmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, J. and Ourn, N. 2003. ‘Nouns, verbs, and syntactic backsliding in Khmer’, Studies in Language 27(3): 505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2004. ‘On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization’, in Fischer, O., Norde, M. and Perridon, H. (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B. 2003. ‘On degrammaticalization’, in Blake, B. and Burridge, K. (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–79.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hill, J. 2005. A grammar of Cupeño. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Hill, V. 2013. ‘The stronghold in the Balkans: Early Modern Romanian infinitives’, paper presented at the 45th meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europae, Split University.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. [1931] 1972. ‘Principles of historical phonology’, in Keiler, A. (ed.), A reader in historical linguistics. New York: Holt, pp. 121–38.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1943. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vols. I–VII. London and Copenhagen: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1995. ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 140–69.Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, J. [1965] 1975. ‘The evolution of grammatical categories’, in Kuryłowicz, J. (ed.), Esquisses linguistiques II. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp. 38–54.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, C. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 57–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lass, R. 1990. ‘How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution’, Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2008. ‘Satisfying V2 in Early Romance: Merge vs Move’, Journal of Linguistics 44: 437–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marchand, H. 1960. Categories and types of English word formation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Margulies, L. and Sagan, D. 1997. Microcosmos. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. 1973. The grammar of Lahu. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. 2001. What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Nguyen, D. Th. 1965. ‘Parallel constructions in Vietnamese’, Lingua 15: 125–39.Google Scholar

Norde, M. 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies’, unpublished MS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ourn, N. and Haiman, J. 2000. ‘Symmetrical compounds in Khmer’, Studies in Language 24: 483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinnow, H.-J. 1978. ‘Remarks on the structure of the Khmer syllable and word’, Mon-Khmer Studies 8: 131–37.Google Scholar

Pott, A. 1862. Die Doppelung(Reduplikation, Gemination) als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache. NP: Lemgo & Detmold.Google Scholar

Prakorb, C.-n. 1992. ‘The problem of aspirates in Central Khmer and Northern Khmer’, Mon-Khmer Studies 22: 252–6.Google Scholar

Rice, K. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roffe, G. E. 1975. ‘Rhyme, reduplication, etc. in Lao’, in Harris, J. G. and Chamberlain, J. R. (eds.), Studies in Tai linguistics in honor of William J. Gedney. Bangkok: Central Institute of English Language, pp. 285–317.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A. 1985. ‘Speech act distinctions in syntax’, in Shopen, T. (ed.), Typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure. Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–96.Google Scholar

Schmerling, S. 1982. ‘How imperatives are special and how they aren’t’, in Schneider, R., Tuite, K. and Chametzky, R. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 202–18.Google Scholar

Stanford, J. 2007. ‘Sui adjective reduplication as poetic morpho-phonology’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16(2): 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thurneysen, R. 1892. ‘Zur Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 16: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiktin, H. 1905. Rumänisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Tinbergen, N. 1952. ‘“Derived” activities’, Quarterly Journal of Biology 27: 1–32.Google ScholarPubMed

Twaddell, W. F. 1938. ‘A note on Old High German umlaut’, Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 37: 177–81.Google Scholar

Vajda, E. 2010. ‘A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages’, in Kari, J. and Potter, B. (eds.), The Siberian–Yeniseian connection. Fairbanks: University of Abaska, Department of Anthropology, pp. 33–99.Google Scholar

Wackernagel, J. 1892. ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’, Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wälchli, B. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weisser, E. 2008. ‘Ashkii Bizaad: Verbal morphology loss in one young speaker’s Navajo’, unpublished thesis, Macalester College.Google Scholar

Wiliams, J. (ed.) Forthcoming. The esthetics of grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology (abridged edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Zepeda, O. 1983. A Tohon O’odham grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 2001. ‘Introduction’, in Andersen, H. (ed.), Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, R. 2003. ‘Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition’, in Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 424–40.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) 2001. Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J. 2010. Control as movement. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borkovskij, V. I. 1968. Sravnitel´no-istoričeskij sintaksis vostočnoslavjanskix jazykov. Členy predloženija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Borkovskij, V. I. 1979. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: sintaksis – složnoe predloženie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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

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

Croft, W. 1995. ‘Autonomy and functionalist linguistics’, Language 71: 490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Smet, H. 2009. ‘Analysing reanalysis’, Lingua 119: 1728–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Smet, H. 2012. ‘The course of actualization’, Language 88: 601–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, B. E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, B. E. and Kaye, J. 1990. ‘A computational learning model for metrical phonology’, Cognition 34: 137–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Emonds, J. 1970. ‘Root and structure-preserving transformations’, unpubilshed PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Faarlund, J. T. 1990. Syntactic change: Toward a theory of historical syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, O. 1988. ‘The rise of the for NP to V construction: an explanation’, in Nixon, G. and Honey, J. (eds.), A historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, pp. 67–88.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 31–42.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. 1998. ‘Unambiguous triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F. and Avelar, J. (eds.) 2012. Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, A. 2012. ‘The historical syntax problem: reanalysis and directionality’, in Jonas, et al. (eds.), pp. 52–72.Google Scholar

Hale, M. 1998. ‘Diachronic syntax’, Syntax 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22: 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, N. 1999. ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Itkonen, E. 2005. Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.) 2012. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2012. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, et al. (eds.), pp. 15–51.Google Scholar

Klima, E. 1965. ‘Studies in diachronic transformational syntax’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar

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

Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), 629–739.Google Scholar

Kuriłowicz, J. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 57–139.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. and Sobin, N. 2000. ‘The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, C. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

Lightfoot, D. 2012. ‘Explaining matrix/subordinate domain discrepancies’, in Aelbrecht, L., Haegeman, L. and Nye, R. (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 159–76.Google Scholar

Lomtev, T. P. 1956. Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic Minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Madariaga, N. 2011. ‘Infinitive clauses and dative subjects in Russian’, Russian Linguistics 35: 301–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Madariaga, N. 2012. ‘Formal mismatches and functional advantage in syntactic change: The case of Old and Middle Russian non-verbal predicates’, Diachronica 29: 231–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meillet, A. 1912 [1958]. Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and explanation’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 177–92.Google Scholar

Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.) 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ojansuu, H. 1909. Mikael Agricolan kielestä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalisation, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 45–73.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, et al. (eds.), pp. 320–35.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 141–77.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. 2002. ‘From etymology to historical pragmatics’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. and Trousdale, G. (eds.) 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uriagereka, J. 1997. ‘Clarifying the notion “parameter”’, Biolinguistics 1: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2010. ‘Features in reanalysis and grammaticalization’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 129–47.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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. 95–188.Google Scholar

Whitman, J. 2000. ‘Relabeling’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 220–40.Google Scholar

Williams, E. 1980. ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–38.Google Scholar

Wu, Z. 2004. Grammaticalization and language change in Chinese. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yang, C. 2002. ‘Grammar competition and language change’, in Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects on morphological change. Oxford University Press, pp. 367–80.Google Scholar

Aitchison, J. 1991. Language change: Progress or decay? London: Fortuna.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H. and Aycock, J. 2007. ‘Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities’, Mental Lexicon 2: 419–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. 2009. ‘Introduction: Analogy in grammar’, Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouda, K. 1939. ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Udischen auf Grund neuer Texte’, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 93(1): 60–72.Google Scholar

Campbell, A. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 1999. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cassidy, F. G. and Ringler, R. N. (eds.) 1971. Bright’s Old English grammar and reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Charachidzé, G. 1981. Grammaire de la langue Avar (langue du Caucase Nord-Est). Saint-Sulpice de Favières: Jean-Favard.Google Scholar

Čikobava, A. and Cercvaʒe, I. 1962. Xunzuri ena [The Avar language]. Tbilisi: Universit’et’i.Google Scholar

De Smet, H. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dirr, A. 1928. ‘Udische Texte’, Caucasica 5: 60–72.Google Scholar

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

Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Forker, D. 2012. ‘The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian’, Folia Linguistica 46: 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gagliardi, A., Goncalves, M., Polinsky, M. and Radkevich, N. 2014. ‘The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez’, Lingua 150: 137–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, A. 2008. ‘Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness’, in Good, J. (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 125–43.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case (Syntax and Semantics 18). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, A. C. 2000a. ‘Word order harmonies and word order change in Georgian’, in Sornicola, R., Poppe, E. and Sisha-Halevy, A. (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word order patterns over time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–63.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C. 2000b. ‘Where in the word is the Udi clitic?’, Language 76: 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, A. C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, A. C. 2013. ‘Origins of metathesis in Batsbi’, in Lohndahl, T. (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–37.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C. 2014. ‘On the origins of biabsolutive constructions in Avar, Batsbi, and Nakh-Daghestanian languages’, presentation at the workshop ‘Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking’, University of Konstanz, April.Google Scholar

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

Hofstadter, D. R. and Sander, E. 2013. Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Jeiranišvili, E. 1971. Udiuri ena [The Udi language]. Tbilisi University.Google Scholar

Joseph, B. D. and Pappas, P. 2002. ‘On some recent views concerning the development of the Greek future system’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26: 247–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kadagiʒe, D. and Kadagiʒe, N. 1984. C’ova-tušur-kartul-rusuli leksik’oni [Tsova-Tush-Georgian-Russian dictionary]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1973. ‘“Elsewhere” in phonology’, in Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. [1978] 1982. ‘Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory’, reprinted in Explanation in phonology, ed. Kiparsky, P.. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 217–36.Google Scholar

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

Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krug, M. 2003. ‘Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change’, in Rojdenburg, G and Mondorf, B. (ed.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Los, B. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ogura, M. 1993. ‘The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax’, Diachronica 10: 51–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ogura, M. and Wang, W. S.-Y. 1996. ‘Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: The development of –s in the third person singular present indicative in English’, in Britton, D. (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics at Edinburgh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 119–41.Google Scholar

Paul, H. [1880] 1968. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 7th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Sadock, J. M. 1973. ‘Word-final devoicing in the development of Yiddish’, in Kachru, B., Lees, R. B. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 790–7.Google Scholar

Schiefner, A. 1863. Versuch über die Sprache der Uden. Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 7th series, 6(8). St Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

Stemberger, J. P. and MacWhinney, B. 1986. ‘Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms’, Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Trask, R. L. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Aldridge, E. 2013. ‘Survey of Chinese historical syntax’, Language and Linguistics Compass 7(1): 39–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, C. 1986. ‘Reconsidering the history of like’, Journal of Linguistics 22: 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, C. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 48: 765–94.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. M. 1986. ‘A note on Old English impersonals’, Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bejar, S. 2002. ‘Movement, morphology and learnability’, in Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press, pp. 307–25.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. 1988. ‘Psych-verbs and theta theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3): 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnett, H. and Troberg, M. 2013. ‘Changes at the syntax-semantics interface: From Late Latin to Modern French’, paper presented at DiGS15, University of Ottawa. https://sites.google.com/site/heathersusanburnett.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. 2004. ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. Oxford University of Press, pp. 115–65.Google Scholar

Carlson, A. 1976. ‘A diachronic treatment of English quantifiers’, unpublished MA thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.) 2010. Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denison, D. 1990. ‘The OE impersonals revived’, in Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N. and Wright, S. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–40.Google Scholar

Dikken, M. 2003. ‘On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases’, MS, City University of New York.Google Scholar

Djamouri, R. and Paul, W. 2009. ‘Verb-to-preposition reanalysis in Chinese’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elenbaas, M. 2014. ‘Directional out of in the history of English: Grammaticalization and reanalysis’, Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(2): 83–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1966. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vols. 1–7. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax’, Foundations of Language 4: 30–57.Google Scholar

Klima, E. 1964. ‘Relatedness between grammatical systems’, Language 40: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 57–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. 1974. ‘An explanation of word order change SVO > SOV’, Foundations of Language 12: 201–14.Google Scholar

Li, Y. H. A. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. 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

Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic Minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lord, C. 1973. ‘Serial verbs in transition’, Studies in African Linguistics 4: 269–96.Google Scholar

Lord, C. 1976. ‘Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa’, in Steever, S., Walker, C. and Mufwene, S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 179–91.Google Scholar

Lord, C. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions (Typological Studies in Language no. 26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, R. 2001. ‘Le prefixe a-/ad- en moyen français’, Romania 119: 289–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Shannessy, C. 2013. ‘The role of multiple sources in the formation of an innovative auxiliary category in Light Warlpiri, a new Australian mixed language’, Language 89: 328–53.Google Scholar

Peyraube, A. 1985. ‘Les structures en ‘ba’ en chinois medieval et moderne’, Cahiers de linguistique Asie Oriental 14: 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peyraube, A. 1996. ‘Recent issues in Chinese historical syntax’, in Huang, C.-T. J. and Li, Y.-H. (eds.), New horizons in Chinese linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 161–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Riemsdijk, H. and Huybregts, M. A. C. 2001. ‘Location and locality’, in van Oostendorp, M. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (eds.), Progress in grammar. Roccade: Amsterdam and Utrecht, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. G. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. G. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sun, C. 1996. Word-order change and grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. 2004. ‘Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), Nordlyd 32: Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Tromsø: CASTL, pp. 205–53.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. 1969. ‘Toward a grammar of syntactic change’, Lingua 23: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Gaaf, W. 1904. The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1975. ‘An explanation of drift’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Word order and word order change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 269–305.Google Scholar

Visser, F. Th. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language, vols. 1–3b. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Wang, L. 1958. Hanyu shi gao (zhong) [A draft history of Chinese (Part II)]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe.Google Scholar

Whitman, J. 2000. ‘Relabelling’, in Pintzuk, S., Toulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 220–38.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L. 1979. ‘Syntactic theory and the projection problem’, Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 533–81.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 2008. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 351–74.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2011. ‘In defence of lexico-centric parametric variation: Two 3rd factor-constrained case studies’, paper presented at the Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation: Rethinking Parameters, Madrid.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘A syntactic universal and its consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.) 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Richards, M. 2006. ‘True optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind’, in Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist essays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–67.CrossRefGoogle 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(1): 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally driven change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Eythórsson, Th. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Crisma, and Longobardi, (eds.), pp. 58–74.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, in Chancharu, J., Hu, X. and Mitrović, M. (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 209–36.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘Conditional inversion and types of parametric change’, paper presented at the 40th Incontro di grammatica generativa, Trento.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2010. ‘Impossible changes and impossible borrowings: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Breitbarth, A., Lucas, C., Watts, S. and Willis, D. (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2011. ‘Negative concord in Afrikaans: Filling a typological gap’, Journal of Semantics 29(3): 345–71.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2012. ‘Negative changes: Three factors and the diachrony of Afrikaans negation’, in Galves, , Cyrino, , Sândalo, , Lopes, and Avelar, (eds.), pp. 237–63.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Branigan, P. 2012. ‘Macroparameter learnability: An Algonquian case study’, unpublished MS, Memorial University, Newfoundland.Google Scholar

Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early years. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. 1970. ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 11–53.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework’, in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp. 1–53.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2007. ‘Approaching UG from below’, in Gärtner, H.-M. and Sauerland, U. (eds.), Interface + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Clark, A. and Lappin, S. 2011. Linguistic nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, R. 1992. ‘The selection of syntactic knowledge’, Language Acquisition 2(2): 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar

Corblin, F., Déprez, V., de Swart, H. and Tovena, L. 2004. ‘Negative concord’, in Corblin, F. and de Swart, H. (eds.), Handbok of French semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 417–52.Google Scholar

Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds) 2009. Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davison, A. 2007. ‘Word order, parameters and the extended COMP projection’, in Bayer, J., Bhattacharya, T. and Hany Babu, M. Veettil Tharayil (eds.), Linguistic theory and South Asian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–98.Google Scholar

Dell, F. 1981. ‘On the learnability of optional phonological rules’, Linguistic Inquiry 12(1): 31–7.Google Scholar

Denison, D. 1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English language, vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar

Deterding, D., Ling Low, E. and Brown, A. 2003. English in Singapore: Research on grammar. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, E. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, E. 2013. ‘The arch not the stones: Universal Feature Theory without universal features’, paper presented at the Conference on Features in Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Semantics: What Are They?, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. and Kaye, J. 1990. ‘A computational learning model for Metrical Phonology’, Cognition 34(1): 137–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dryer, M. 1992. ‘The Greenbergian word order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duguine, M. and Irurtzun, A. 2014. ‘From obligatory wh-movement to optional wh-in-situ in Labourdin Basque’, Language 90(1): e1–e30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evers, A. and van Kampen, J. 2008. ‘Parameter setting and input reduction’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 483–515.Google Scholar

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

Fisher, C. 2002. ‘The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000)’, Cognition 82: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J. D. 1998. ‘Unambiguous triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 19(1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. D. and Sakas, W. 2004. ‘Evaluating models of parameter setting’, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 28). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Fontana, J. 1993. ‘Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Frank, R. and Kapur, S. 1996. ‘On the use of triggers in parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 623–60.Google Scholar

Fukui, N. 1986. ‘A theory of category projection and its applications’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Fuß, E. and Trips, C. 2002. ‘Variation and change in Old and Middle English – on the validity of the double base hypothesis’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Sândalo, F., Lopes, R. and Avelar, J. (eds.) 2012. Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gentner, D. and Boroditsky, L. 2001. ‘Individuation, relational relativity and early word learning’, in Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–56.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 2000. ‘Negative … Concord?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, E. and Wexler, K. 1994. ‘Triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 25(3): 407–54.Google Scholar

Gold, E. M. 1967. ‘Language identication in the limit’, Information and Control 10: 447–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S., Butcher, C., Mylander, C. and Dodge, M. 1994. ‘Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: what’s in a name?’, Cognitive Psychology 27: 259–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 1998. ‘Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition’, Linguistic Inquiry 29(4): 656–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 2003. ‘The subset principle in phonology: Why the tabula can’t be rasa’, Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle 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(2/3): 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2005. ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null subject parameters’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 88–112.Google Scholar

Ingham, R. and Larrivée, P. 2011. The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jäger, A. 2008. History of German negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. 1998. ‘The historical creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. 2009. ‘Linguistic theory and the historical creation of English reflexives’, in Crisma, and Longobardi, (eds.), pp. 17–40.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, K., Denton, J., Knippen, B., Meinar, L., Suzuki, H. and Zeinfeld, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirtieth annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 629–739.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. ‘Verb–object order in early Middle English’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 132–63.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liberman, M. and Sag, I. 1974. ‘Prosodic form and discourse function’, Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 416–27.Google Scholar

Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. 2003. ‘Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar’, Cognition 87(3): 151–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lidz, J. and Gleitman, L. 2004. ‘Argument structure and the child’s contribution to language learning’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(4): 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

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

Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacSwan, J. 2000. ‘The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(1): 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marcus, G. 1993. ‘Negative evidence in language acquisition’, Cognition 46: 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moerenhout, M. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Object–verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: An exploratory study’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newport, E., Gleitman, L. and Gleitman, H. 1977. ‘Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style’, in Snow, C. and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquistion. Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–49.Google Scholar

Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. 1995. ‘The logical problem of language change’, A.I. Memo no. 1516, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. 1991. ‘Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.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

Poletto, C. 1995. ‘The diachronic development of subject clitics in North-Eastern Italian dialects’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richards, M. 2008. ‘Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system’, in Heck, F., Müller, G. and Trommer, J. (eds.), Varieties of competition: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Leipzig University, pp. 133–62.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1986. ‘Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 2010. ‘A deletion analysis of null subjects’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 58–87.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, , Cyrino, , Sândalo, , Lopes, and Avelar, (eds.), pp. 320–35.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rögnvaldsson, E. 1996. ‘Word order variation in the VP in Old Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 55–86.Google Scholar

Sakas, W. and Fodor, J. D. 2012. ‘Disambiguating syntactic triggers’, Language Acquisition 19: 83–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Santorini, B. 1989. ‘The generalization of the verb-second constraint in the history of Yiddish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Santorini, B. 1992. ‘Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 595–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Speyer, A. 2008. ‘On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English, with a few remarks on German’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Taylor, A. 1990. ‘Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Taylor, A. and Pintzuk, S. 2012. ‘Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status’, in Traugott, E. C. and Nevalainen, T. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford University Press, pp. 835–45.Google Scholar

Thráinsson, H. 2003. ‘Syntactic variation, historical development, and minimalism’, in Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 152–91.Google Scholar

Travis, L. 1984. ‘Parameters and effects of word order variation’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Walkden, G. 2012. ‘Against Inertia’, Lingua 122(8): 891–901.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

Wexler, K. and Culicover, P. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Yang, C. 2013. ‘Tipping Points’, talk given at the 36 Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW36) Conference, Lund.Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, H. 2004. ‘Sentential negation and negative concord’, unpublished PhD thesis, Amsterdam University.Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, H. 2008. ‘On the syntactic flexibility of formal features’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 143–73.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) 2001. A real diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, C. L. [1977] 1980. Topics in diachronic English syntax. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts 1977; published New York: Garland, 1980.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. ‘Relativization on subjects’, in Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gill, D. and Comrie, B. (eds.), The world atlas of linguistic structures (WALS). Oxford University Press, pp. 494–7.Google Scholar

Gast, V. and van der Auwera, J. 2012. ‘What is “contact-induced grammaticalization”? Evidence from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean Languages’, in Wiemer, , Wälchli, and Hansen, (eds.), pp. 381–426.Google Scholar