Allen, C. 1997 Investigating the origins of the “group genitive” in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95. 1: 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, C. 2002 Case and Middle English genitive noun phrases. In Lightfoot, ed. 57–80.

Anderson, S. R. & Lightfoot, D. W. 2002 The language organ: linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. A. 2001 The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

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

Bejar, S. 2002 Movement, morphology, and learnability. In Lightfoot, ed. 307–325.

Belletti, A. 1994 Verb positions: evidence from Italian. In Lightfoot & Hornstein, eds. 19–40.

Berlin, I. 1996 The sense of reality: studies in ideas and their history. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar

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

Bickerton, D. 1984a The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, D. 1984b Creole is still king: response to commentary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7: 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, D. 2004 Reconsidering creole exceptionalism. Language 80. 4: 828–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933 Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. 2001 The Rich Agreement Hypothesis in review. Ms, McGill University.

Briscoe, E. 2000 Grammatical acquisition: inductive bias and coevolution of language and the acquisition device. Language 76. 2: 245–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brugmann, K. 1918 Verschiedenheiten der Satzgestaltung nach Massgabe der seelischen Grundfunktionen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Trübner.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. 1925 Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. & Delbrück, B. 1886–1900 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar

Buck, L. & Axel, R. 1991 A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell 65: 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

Campbell, L. 1990 Syntactic reconstruction and Finno-Ugric. In Andersen, H. & Koerner, K., eds. Historical linguistics 1987: papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, L. 1997 Typological and areal issues in reconstruction. In Fisiak, J., ed. Linguistic reconstruction and typology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 49–72.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. & Harris, A. 2002 Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “Myths and the prehistory of grammars.” Journal of Linguistics 38: 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Canale, M. 1978 Word order change in Old English: base reanalysis in generative grammar. PhD dissertation, McGill University.

Chambers, J. K. 1992 Dialect acquisition. Language 68: 673–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chaudenson, R. 1992 Des îles, des hommes, des langues. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1959 Review of B. F. SkinnerVerbal Behavior. Language 35: 26–57.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1973 Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., eds. A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 232–286.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1975 The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1980 On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1981b Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. W., eds. Explanation in linguistics: the logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman. 32–75.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2002 On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 1999 Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. & K.-D. Smolka 1986 Psycholinguistic evidence and the description of V2 in German. In Haider, H. & Prinzhorn, M., eds. Verb-second phenomena in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris. 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Cohen, G. A. 1978 Karl Marx's theory of history: a defense. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Crain, S. & Thornton, R. 1998 Investigations in Universal Grammar: a guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 2004 The stories of English. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Curtiss, S. 1977 Genie: a psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child.”New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Davies, A. M. 1998 Nineteenth-century linguistics [History of Linguistics, ed. G. Lepschy, vol. 4]. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Dawkins, R. 2004 The ancestor's tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar

DeGraff, M., ed. 1998 Language creation and change: creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

DeGraff, M. 2001 Morphology in creole genesis: linguistics and ideology. In Kenstowicz, M., ed. Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53–121.Google Scholar

DeGraff, M. 2004 Against creole exceptionalism (redux). Language 80. 4: 834–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. 1997 The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Dresher, B. E. & Kaye, J. 1990 A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34: 137–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ekwall, E. 1943 Studies on the genitive of groups in English. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Fikkert, P. 1994 On the acquisition of prosodic structure. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.

Fikkert, P. 1995 Models of acquisition: how to acquire stress. In Beckman, J., ed. Proceedings of NELS 25. GLSA, University of Massachusetts. 27–42.Google Scholar

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

Friedrich, P. 1975 Proto-Indo-European syntax. Journal of Indo European Studies monograph no.1, Butte, Montana.Google Scholar

Frisch, K. 1967 The dance language and orientation of the bees (transl. L. E. Chadwick). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gelderen, E. 1997 Verbal agreement and the grammar behind its “breakdown”: Minimalist feature checking. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Getty, M. 2002 The metre of Beowulf: a constraint-based approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gianollo, C., C. Guardiano, & G. Longobardi 2004 Historical implications of a formal theory of syntactic variation. Paper presented at DIGS VIII, Yale University. Ms, University of Trieste.

Gibson, E. & Wexler, K. 1994 Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 3: 407–454.Google Scholar

Goethe, J. W. 1790 Versuch die Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären. Gotha: C. W. Ettinger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003 The resilience of language: what gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. 1990 Beyond the input given: the child's role in the acquisition of language. Language 66: 323–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gopnik, M. & Crago, M. 1991 Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition 39: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gorrell, J. H. 1895 Indirect discourse in Anglo-Saxon. PMLA 10. 3: 342–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gould, S. J. 1985 A clock of evolution. Natural History, April: 12–25.Google 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. 73–113.Google Scholar

Grimes, B. F. & Grimes, J. E. 2000 Ethnologue, vol. 1: Languages of the world; vol. 2: Maps and indexes. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar

Grimm, J. 1848 Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, vol.1. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Haeberli, E. 2002 Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In Lightfoot, ed. 88–106.

Haegeman, L. 1994 Introduction to government and binding theory (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hall, R. 1966 Pidgin and creole languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

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

Haspelmath, M. 1999a Are there principles of grammatical change?Journal of Linguistics 35. 3: 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1999b Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics37. 6: 1043–1068.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. 1979 Implicational universals as predictors of word order change. Language 55. 3: 618–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hickey, R. ed. 2003 Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiltunen, R. 1983 The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar

Hock, H. H. 1986 Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hock, H. H. & Joseph, B. D. 1996 Language history, language change, and language relationship: an introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. 1965 Sound change. Language 41: 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoenigswald, H. 1978 The annus mirabilis 1876 and posterity. Transactions of the Philological Society: 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. & Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. 2003 Grammaticalization (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, N. 2001 Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hróarsdóttir, . 2000a Word order change in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hróarsdóttir, þ.2000b Interacting movements in the history of Icelandic. In Pintzuk, Tsoulas, & Warner, eds. 296–321.

Hubel, D. 1978 Vision and the brain. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 31. 7: 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hubel, D. & Wiesel, T. 1962 Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. Journal of Physiology 160: 106–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Humboldt, W. 1836 Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues undihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin [Linguistic variability and intellectual development, transl. Buck, G. C. & Raven, F. A. 1971. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press].Google Scholar

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

Hyams, N. 1996 The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In Clahsen, H., ed. Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 91–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, R. D. 2001 Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23. 2–3: 265–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, R. D. & Joseph, B. D., eds. 2003 Handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Jeffers, R. 1976 Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In Christie, W., ed. Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1–16.Google Scholar

Jerne, N. K. 1985 The generative grammar of the immune system. Science 229: 1057–1059.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jespersen, O. 1909 Progress in language (2nd edn). London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar

Jonas, D. 2002 Residual V-to-I. In Lightfoot, ed. 251–270.

Joseph, B. D. 2001 Is there such a thing as grammaticalization?Language Sciences 23. 2–3: 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kato, M. & Negrão, E., eds. 2000 Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt: Vervürt.Google Scholar

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

Kegl, J., A. Senghas, & M. Coppola 1998 Creation through contact: sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In DeGraff, ed. 179–237.

Kellner, L. 1892 Historical outlines of English syntax. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

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

Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N., eds. 1997 Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kerswill, P. 1996 Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change 7: 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1996 The shift to head-initial VP in Germanic. In Thráinsson, H., Epstein, S., & Peters, S. eds. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 140–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1997 The rise of positional licensing in Germanic. In van Kemenade & Vincent, eds. 460–494.

Klein, W. 1974 Word order, Dutch children and their mothers. Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap 9. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Koeneman, O. 2000 The flexible nature of verb movement. PhD dissertation, Univerity of Utrecht.

Kohonen, V. 1978 On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 A.D.: a quantitative study of word order in context. Åbo: Åbo Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar

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

Koopman, H. 1986 The genesis of Haitian: implications of a comparison of some features of the syntax of Haitian, French, and West-African languages. In Muysken, P. & Smith, N., eds. Substrata versus universals in creole languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kouwenberg, S. 1992 From OV to VO: linguistic negotiation in the development of Berbice Dutch Creole. Lingua 88: 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kroch, A. 1994 Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, K. et al., eds. Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. & A. Taylor 1997 The syntax of verb movement in Middle English: dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade and Vincent, eds. 297–325.

Kroch, A. 2000 Verb–object order in early Middle English. In Pintzuk, Tsoulas, & Warner, eds. 132–163.

Kuhn, T. 1962 The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1963 The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, R. T. 1975 Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. 1999 Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 1980 On explaining linguistic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 1997 Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lees, R. 1957 Review of Syntactic Structures. Language 33. 3: 375–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, W. P. 1967 A reader in nineteenth century historical Indo-European linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Lehmann, W. P. 1974 Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Lehmann, W. P. & L. Zgusta 1979 Schleicher's tale after a century. In Brogyanyi, B., ed. Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguistics: festschrift for Oswald Szemerenyi on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lenneberg, E. H. 1967 The biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Lewontin, R. C. 1972 The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology 6: 381–398.Google Scholar

Li, C. N., ed. 1975 Word order and word order change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 1974 The diachronic analysis of English modals. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C., eds. Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 219–249.Google Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 1980 Sur la reconstruction d'une proto-syntaxe. Langages 60: 109–123. [English version in Ramat, P., ed. Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-European syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 128–142. Reprinted in Rauch, I. & Carr, J., eds. Language change. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.]Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1989 The child's trigger experience: degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12. 2: 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 1993 Why UG needs a learning theory: triggering verb movement. In Jones, C., ed. Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London: Longman. 190–214. [Reprinted in Battye, A. & Roberts, I. G., eds. Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1994 Degree-0 learnability. In Lust, B., Hermon, G., & Kornfilt, J., eds. Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: crosslinguistic perspectives, vol. 2: Binding dependency and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 453–472.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1997 Catastrophic change and learning theory. Lingua 100: 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 2002b Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 2002c More myths. Journal of Linguistics 38: 619–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 2002d Introduction to Chomsky 1957. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lightfoot, D. W. 2003 Grammaticalisation: cause or effect? In Hickey, ed. 99–123.

Lightfoot, D. W. 2006 Minimizing government: deletion as cliticization. The Linguistic Review 23.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. & Hornstein, N., eds. 1994 Verb movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lilly, J. C. 1975 Lilly on dolphins: humans of the sea. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2002 Parametric comparison and historical relatedness. Paper presented at DIGS VII, Girona.

Longobardi, G. 2003 On parameters and parameter theory. In Stark, E. & Wandruszka, U., eds. Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. 273–290.Google Scholar

Lorenz, K. 1961 Evolution and modification of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lumsden, J. 1998 Language acquisition and creolization. In DeGraff, ed. 129–157.

Marler, P. 1999 On innateness: are sparrow songs “learned” or “innate”? In Hauser, M. D. & Konishi, M., eds. The design of animal communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 293–332.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. 2003 On change in “E-language.” In Hickey, ed. 7–17.

Mayr, E. 2004 What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meillet, A. 1937 Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Hachette [reprinted 1964, University of Alabama Press].Google Scholar

Miller, D. G. 1975 Indo-European: VSO, SOV, SVO, or all three?Lingua 37: 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muysken, P. 1988 Are creoles a special type of language? In Newmeyer, F., ed. Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 285–301.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, T. 1960 A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Nettle, D. & Romaine, S. 2000 Vanishing voices: the extinction of the world's languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Newmeyer, F. 2000 On the reconstruction of “Proto-World” word order. In Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Hurford, J., eds. The evolutionary emergence of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. 2003 Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79. 4: 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newport, E. L. 1998 Reduced input in the acquisition of signed languages: Contributions to the study of creolization. In DeGraff, ed. 161–178.

Newport, E. L., D. Bavelier, & H. J. Neville 2002 Critical thinking about critical periods: Perspectives on a critical period for language acquisition. In Dupoux, E., ed. Language, brain and cognitive development. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 481–502.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. 1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Niyogi, P. & Berwick, R. C. 1997 A dynamical systems model of language change. Complex Systems 11: 161–204.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. 1995 The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.

Nunes, J. 2004 Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nunnally, T. 1985 The syntax of the genitive in Old, Middle, and Early Modern English. PhD dissertation, University of Georgia.

Neil, O' W. 1978 The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: a study in the causes of language change. Orbis 27. 2: 248–285.Google Scholar

Otani, K. & Whitman, J. 1991 V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 345–358.Google Scholar

Paul, H. 1880 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Pearl, L. 2004 Addressing acquisition from language change: a modeling perspective. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 1.Google Scholar

Pedersen, H. 1931 The discovery of language: linguistic science in the nineteenth century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piattelli-Palmarini, M. 1986 The rise of selective theories: a case study and some lessons from immunology. In Demopoulos, W. & Marras, A., eds. Language learning and concept acquisition: foundational issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 117–130.Google Scholar

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

Pintzuk, S. 2002 Verb-complement order in Old English. In Lightfoot, ed. 276–299.

Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G., & Warner, A., eds. 2000 Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pires, A. 2002 Cue-based change: inflection and subjects in the history of Portuguese infinitives. In Lightfoot, ed. 143–159.CrossRef

Plank, F. 1984 The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8: 305–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Platzack, C. 1988 The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses. Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax: McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 215–238.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1959 The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Pulgram, E. 1959 Proto-Indo-European reality and reconstruction. Language 35. 3: 421–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quirk, R. & Wrenn, C. L. 1955 An Old English grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Rask, R. 1818 Undersøgelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 2000 At the edge of knowability: towards a prehistory of languages. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10. 1: 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1978 Violations of the wh-island constraint in Italian and the Subjacency Condition. In Dubuisson, C., Lightfoot, D. W., & Morin, C.-Y., eds. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 155–190.Google Scholar

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

Roberts, I. G. 1997 Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In van Kemenade & N. Vincent, eds. 397–426.

Roberts, I. G. 1998a Verb movement and markedness. In DeGraff, ed. 287–327.

Roberts, I. G. 1998b Review of A. Harris & L. Campbell, Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Romance Philology 51: 363–370.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. G. & A. Roussou 2002 The history of the future. In Lightfoot, ed. 23–56.

Roberts, I. G. 2003 Syntactic change: a minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robins, R. H. 1967 A short history of linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, C. 2002 Loss of verbal morphology and the status of referential null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Lightfoot, ed. 160–178.

Rohrbacher, B. 1999 Morphology-driven syntax: a theory of V to I raising and pro-drop. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, J. R. 1967 Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Ross, J. R. 1969 Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Todd, W., ed. Studies in philosophical linguistics, Series I. Evanston: Great Expectations. 77–102.Google Scholar

Sampson, G. 1980 Schools of linguistics: competition and evolution. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. 2005 The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 2661–2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, G. & Laberge, S. 1973 On the acquisition of speakers by a native language. Kivung 6: 32–47.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1921 Language. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1929 The status of linguistics as a science. Language 5: 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saussure, F. 1879 Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langages européennes. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Schleicher, A. 1848 Über die Bedeutung der Sprache für die Naturgeschichte des Menschen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar

Schleicher, A. 1861–1862 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar

Schleicher, A. 1863 Die darwinische Theorie und Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar

Schneider, E. W. 2003 The dynamics of new Englishes: from identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79. 2: 233–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. 2004 Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305: 1779–1782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sievers, E. 1876 Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

Singler., J. 1988 The homogeneity of the substrate as a factor in pidgin/creole genesis. Language 64. 1: 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Singleton, J. & Newport, E. L. 2004 When learners surpass their models: the acquisition of American Sign Language from impoverished input. Cognitive Psychology 49: 370–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, N. S. H., Robertson, I., & Williamson, K. 1987 The Ijo element in Berbice Dutch. Language in Society 16: 49–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperry, R. 1968 Plasticity of neural maturation. Developmental Biology Supplement 2: 306–27.Google Scholar

Steever, S., Walker, C., & Mufwene, S., eds. 1976 Diachronic syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Stewart, I. 1998 Life's other secret. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Stockwell, R. P. & D. Minkova 1991 Subordination and word order change in the history of English. In Kastovsky, D., ed. Historical English Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 367–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stokoe, W. 1960 Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communications systems. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8.Google Scholar

Sundquist, J. D. 2002 Object Shift and Holmsberg's Generalization in the history of Norwegian. In Lightfoot, ed. 326–347.

Supalla, S. 1990 Segmentation of Manually Coded English: problems in the mapping of English in the visual/gestural mode. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.

Thackray, A. 1970 Atoms and powers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Thompson, D. W. 1917 On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornton, R. 1995 Referentiality and Wh-movement in child English: Juvenile D-linkuency. Language Acquisition 4: 139–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. 1999 Principle B, VP ellipsis, and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Thorpe, W. H. 1957 The learning of song patterns by birds, with special reference to the song of the Chaffinch Fringilla Coelebs. Ibis 100: 535–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thráinsson, H. 2003 Syntactic variation, historical development and Minimalism. In Hendrick, R., ed. Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. 152–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tinbergen, N. 1957 The herring gull's world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Turing, A. 1952 The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1975 An explanation of drift. In Li, ed. 269–305.

Venter, C. 2002 Commencement address: Georgetown University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

Vikner, S. 1994 Finite verb movement in Scandinavian embedded clauses. In Lightfoot & Hornstein, eds. 117–147.

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

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

Warner, A. R. 1995 Predicting the progressive passive: parametric change within a lexicalist framework. Language 71. 3: 533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. R. 1997 The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English. In van Kemenade & Vincent, eds. 380–393.

Watkins, C. 1976 Toward Proto-Indo-European syntax: problems and pseudoproblems. In Steever, Walker, & Mufwene, eds. 305–326.

Weinberg, S. 1977 The forces of nature. American Scientist 65. 2: 171–176.Google Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2005 What Norwegian child language can tell us about the history of English. In , K. McCafferty, , T. Bull, & , K. Killie, eds. Contexts – historical, social, linguistic: studies in celebration of Toril Swan. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Wexler, K. 1994 Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivations. In Lightfoot & Hornstein, eds. 305–350.

Whitney, D. 1875 The life and growth of language: an outline of linguistic science. New York: D. Appleton & Co.Google Scholar

Wurff, W. 1999 Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: a word order parallel and its causes. Lingua 109: 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Zagona, K. 1988 Proper government of antecedentless VP in English and Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar