Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
Part II - Methods and Tools
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 187 - 272Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Allen, W. S. 1953. ‘Relationship in comparative linguistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 52: 52–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2013. ‘Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction’, in Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 438–57.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. and Eythórsson, T. 2012. ‘Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the comparative method’, in Boas, H. C. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 257–308.Google Scholar
Bomhard, A. R. 2008. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: comparative phonology, morphology, and vocabulary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 3rd edn. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. and Harris, A. C. 2002. ‘Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “myths and the prehistory of grammars”’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, T. and Bowern, C. 2010. An introduction to historical linguistics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, G. J. 2011. Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolgopolsky, A. 1998. The Nostratic macrofamily and linguistic palaeontology. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. 1937. Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris.Google Scholar
Friedrich, P. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of the meaningful elements (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 1). Butte, MT: Journal of Indo-European Studies.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 2000–2. Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns’, in Ferraresi, G. and Goldback, M. (eds.), Principles of Syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1950. ‘The principal step in comparative grammar’, Language 26: 357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. 1963. ‘On the history of the comparative method’, Anthropological Linguistics 5: 1–11.Google Scholar
Jeffers, R., 1976. ‘Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction’, in Christie, W. M. Jr (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the second international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Kümmel, M. J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. The Sounds of the world’s languages. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2002. ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. 1967. The comparative method in historical linguistics, trans. Ford, Gordon B.. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1996. ‘The comparative method as heuristic’, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, E., West, P. and Coleman, J. 2000. ‘Proto-Indo-European laryngeals were vocalic’, Diachronica 17: 351–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D. and Eska, J. F. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suthiwan, T. and Tadmor, U. 2009. ‘Loanwords in Thai’, in Haspelmath, M. and Tadmor, U. (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter pp. 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trask, L. and McColl Millar, R. 2007. Trask’s historical linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2013. ‘The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction’, Diachronica 30: 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, L. D. 1980. ‘A note on historical linguistics and Marc Bloch’s comparative method’, History and Theory 19: 154–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, C. 1976a. ‘Syntax and metrics in the Dipylon vase inscription’, in Davies, A. Morpurgo and Meid, W. (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 431–41.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1976b. ‘Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems’, in Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. and Mufwene, S. S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, April 22, 1976. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 305–26.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1991. ‘Etymologies, equations and comparanda: Types and values, and criteria for judgment’, in Baldi, P. (ed.), Patterns of change, change of patterns: Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–82.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1995. How to kill a dragon: Aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2011. ‘Reconstructing last week’s weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives’, Journal of Linguistics 47: 407–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Anderson, S.R. 2014. ‘Morphological change’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 264–85.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2014. ‘Syntax and syntactic reconstruction’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 343–73.Google Scholar
Baxter, W. H. 2002. ‘Where does the ‘comparative method’ come from?’, in Cavoto, F. (ed.), The linguist’s linguist: A collection of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. and Evans, B. (eds.) 2014. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Collé, C. 1974. ‘La vérité dans le vin, ou les désagrémens de la galanterie’, in Truchet, J. (ed.), Théâtre du XVIIIe siècle (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 599–655.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. 1987. La morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. 1971. ‘Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 5–22.Google Scholar
Dufter, A. 2013. ‘Zur Geschichte der ne-Absenz in der neufranzösischen Satznegation’, in Fesenmeier, L., Grutschus, A. and Patzelt, C. (eds.), L’absence au niveau syntagmatique. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, pp. 131–58.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, G. and Goldbach, M. (eds.) 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Construction: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and Zanuttini, R. 1991. ‘Negative heads and the Neg-criterion’, The Linguistic Review 8: 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax’, in Ferraresi, and Goldbach, (eds.), pp. 73–95.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D. 2010. ‘Internal reconstruction’, in Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The continuum companion to historical linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 52–58.Google Scholar
Koch, H. 2014. ‘Morphological reconstruction’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 286–307.Google Scholar
Lühr, R. 2008. ‘Competitive Indo-European syntax’, in Ferraresi, and Goldbach, (eds.), pp. 121–59.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1969. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge, 3rd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2003. ‘Internal reconstruction’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 244–61.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. ‘Negation, wh-movement and the null subject parameter’, in Rizzi, L., Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 117–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. II: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Uth, M. 2011. Französische Ereignisnominalisierungen. Abstrakte Bedeutung und regelhafte Wortbildung. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uth, M. 2012. ‘The lexicalist hypothesis and the semantics of event nominalization suffixes’, in Gaglia, S. and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds.), Inflection and word formation in Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 347–67.Google Scholar
Websites
References
Bailey, C.-J. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bean, M. C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, R. and Croft, W. 2012. ‘S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change’, Language 88: 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H. 1998. ‘Two heads aren’t always better than one’, Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1951. ‘A mathematical model for simple learning’, Psychological Review 58: 313–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canale, W. M. 1978. ‘Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, P. 2002. ‘She say, she go, she be like: Verbs of quotation over time in African American Vernacular English’, American Speech 77: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danchev, A. 1991. ‘Language change typology and some aspects of the SVO development in English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar
Durham, M., Haddican, B., Zweig, E., Johnson, D., Baker, Z., Cockeram, D., Danks, E. and Tyler, L. 2012. ‘Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like’, Journal of English Linguistics 40: 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ecay, A. 2015. ‘Construction and lexical class effects in the history of do-support’, presentation at DiGS17, Reykjavík, Iceland, 29–31 May 2015.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. and Pintzuk, S. 2011. ‘Verb (projection) raising in Old English’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 219–38.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. ‘How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A. and Hansen, Z.S. 2010. ‘V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohonen, V. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 A.D.: A quantitative study of word order in context. Meddelanden Fran Stiftelsens for Äbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, no. 38. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989a. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989b. ‘Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do’, in Fasold, R. W. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 132–72.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2: 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699–729.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Delfs, L. 2004. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Diertani, A. 2010. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1979. ‘The English passive: An argument for historical rule stability’, Linguistic Inquiry 10: 667–88.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1981. ‘Explaining syntactic change’, in Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. W. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 207–40.Google Scholar
Los, B. 2009. ‘The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English’, English Language and Linguistics 13(1): 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1979. ‘F. Th. Visser, An historical syntax of the English language: Some caveats concerning Old English’, English Studies 60: 537–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Lorido, R. 2009. ‘Reconsidering the role of syntactic “heaviness” in Old English split coordination’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 45.1: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Plug, L. 2002. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry (YCOEP). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang18/pcorpus.html).Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Taylor, A. 2006. ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 249–78.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1988. ‘The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses’, in Fekete, D. and Laubitz, Z. (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, pp. 215–38.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop (Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russom, J. H. 1982. ‘An examination of the evidence for OE indirect passives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 677–80.Google Scholar
Santorini, B. 1993. ‘The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish’, Language Variation and Change 5: 257–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, A. R. and Vance, B. S. 1999. ‘An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance languages’, in DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–83.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. 1977. ‘Motivations for exbraciation in Old English’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. and Minkova, D. 1991. ‘Subordination and word order change in the history of English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 367–408.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. 2002. ‘Morphosyntactic change in the history of the Mainland Scandinavian languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. 2003. ‘The rich agreement hypothesis and Early Modern Danish embedded-clause word order’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 233–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. and D’Arcy, A. 2009. ‘Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change’, Language 85(1): 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Nurmi, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Nevalainen, T. 2006. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/PCEEC-manual/index.htm).Google Scholar
Taylor, A. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Special issue on aspects of OV and VO order in the history of English’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Beths, F. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edition (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YcoeHome1.htm).Google Scholar
van der Wurff, W. 1999. ‘Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: A word order parallel and its causes’, Lingua 109: 237–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1997. ‘V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. 2008. ‘Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish’, Probus 20: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2009. ‘Antisymmetry and the conservation of c-command: Scrambling and phrase structure in synchronic and diachronic perspective’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J., Ingason, A. K., Sigurðsson, E. F. and Rögnvaldsson, E. 2011. Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus (IcePaHC). Department of Linguistics, University of Iceland. Online publication, version 0.9. (www.linguist.is/icelandic_treebank).Google Scholar
Warner, A. 2004. ‘What drove DO?’, in Kay, C., Horobin, S. and Smith, J. (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–42.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2000. ‘Internal and external forces in language change’, Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. and Stavrou, M. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) 2001. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbançon, F. G., Evans, S.N., Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. and Warnow, T. 2013. ‘An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods’, Diachronica 30(2): 143–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J. 2001. ‘The DP hypothesis: Identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 536–61.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheean, M. (eds.) 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Piattelli Palmarini, M. 2005. ‘Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a natural science’, The Linguistic Review 22(2–3): 447–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortolussi, L., Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C. and Sgarro, A. 2011. ‘How many possible languages are there?’, in Bel-Enguix, G., Dahl, V. and Jiménez-López, M. D. (eds.), Biology, computation and linguistics. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 168–79.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Alekseyenko, A. V., Drummond, A. J., Gray, R. D., Suchard, M. A. and Atkinson, Q. D. 2012. ‘Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family’, Science 337: 957–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R., Bogerhoff-Mulder, M., Durham, W. H. and Richerson, P. J. 1997. ‘Are cultural phylogenies possible?’, in Weingart, P., Mitchell, S. D., Richerson, P. J. and Maasen, S. (eds.), Human by nature: Between biology and the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 355–86.Google Scholar
Cavalli Sforza, L. L. 2000. Genes, peoples, and languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cavalli Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. 1994. The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cavalli Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P. and Mountain, J. 1988. ‘Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archeological and linguistic data’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 85: 6002–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. MS, MIT (published in 1975, New York: Plenum).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J., Forster, P. and Renfrew, C. (eds.) 2004. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. 1998. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, M., Terrill, A., Reesink, G., Foley, R. A. and Levinson, S. C. 2005. ‘Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history’, Science 309(5743): 2072–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyen, I., Kruskal, J. B. and Black, P. 1992. ‘An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(5): 1–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 2012. Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.5c. Distributed by the author. Department of Genetics, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Fitch, T. W. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. D. 2001. ‘Setting syntactic parameters’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 730–67.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., Paul, I. and Wiltschko, M. (eds.) 2009. Determiners: Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–41.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Giuseppe, L. 1991. The syntax of noun phrases: Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, R. D. and Atkinson, Q. D. 2003. ‘Language tree divergences support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin’, Nature 426: 435–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, J. 1963. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 2000. Indo-European and its closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenhill, S. J. 2011. ‘Levenshtein distances fail to identify language relationships accurately’, Computational Linguistics 37: 689–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2005. ‘Parametric comparison and language taxonomy’, in Batllori, M., Hernanz, M.-Ll., Picallo, C. and Roca, F. (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation. Oxford University Press, pp. 149–74.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2016. ‘Parameter theory and parametric comparison’, in Roberts, I. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 377-401.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. Forthcoming. ‘Formal syntactic methods for establishing language phyogenies’, in Janda, R.D., Joseph, B.D. and Vance, B. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, Vol. II. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C., Michelioudakis, D., Ceolin, A., Irimia, M. A., Longobardi, G., Radkevich, N., Silvestri, G. and Sitaridou, I. 2016. ‘South by southeast: A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, T. W. 2002. ‘The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’, Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heggarty, P. 2004. ‘Interdisciplinary indiscipline? Can phylogenetic methods meaningfully be applied to language data – and to dating language?’, in Clackson, , Forster, and Renfrew, (eds.), pp. 183–94.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. 2013. ‘Lexikostatik 2.0’, in Plewnia, A. and Witt, A. (eds.), Sprachverfall? Dynamik – Wandel – Variation. Jahrbuch 2013 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar
Jäger, G. 2015. ‘Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment’. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science 112(41): 12752–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keenan, E. 1994. ‘Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2000. ‘An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts 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 the English language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–54.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. and Paperno, D. (eds.) 2012. Handbook of quantifiers in natural languages. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyrè, A. 1961. ‘Du monde de l’à peu près’ à l’univers de la precision’, in Etudes d’histoire de la pensée philosophique. Paris: Colin, pp. 311–29.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohr, M. 1998. ‘Methods for the genetic classification of languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1996. ‘The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 5, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001a. ‘How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names’, Natural Language Semantics 9: 335–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001b. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2003. ‘Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 101–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2005. ‘A minimalist program for parametric linguistics?’, in Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies for Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 407–14.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters’, in Klinge, A. and Müller, H. Høeg (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2012. ‘Convergence in parametric phylogenies: Homoplasy or principled explanation?’, in Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F. and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter theory and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 304–19.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C. 2009. ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’, Lingua 119(11): 1679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C., Silvestri, G., Boattini, A. and Ceolin, A. 2013. ‘Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages’, Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 122–52.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G., Ghirotto, S., Guardiano, C., Tassi, F., Benazzo, A., Ceolin, A. and Barbujani, G. 2015. ‘Across language families: Genome diversity mirrors linguistic variation within Europe’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 157: 630–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., Ceolin, A., Bortolussi, L., Guardiano, C., Irimia, M. A., Michelioudakis, D., Radkevich, N. and Sgarro, A. 2016a. ‘Mathematical modeling of grammatical diversity supports the historical reality of formal syntax’, in Bentz, C., Jäger, G. and Yanovich, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the Leidon Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. University of Tubingen, online publication system, https://publikationen.unituebingen.do/xmlui/handle/10900/68558.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G., Ceolin, A., Ecay, A., Ghirotto, S., Guardiano, C., Irimia, M. A., Michelioudakis, D., Radkevic, N., Luiselli, D., Pettener, D. and Barbujani, G. 2016b. ‘Formal linguistics as a cue to demographic history’, Journal of Anthropological Sciences 94: 1–10..Google ScholarPubMed
Mantel, N. 1967. ‘The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach’, Cancer Research 27: 209–20.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. 2010. ‘Computational models and language contact’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 31–47.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. and McMahon, R. 2003. ‘Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classifying’, Transaction of the Philological Society 101(1): 7–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. and McMahon, R. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Ringe, D. and Evans, S. N. 2005. ‘A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an IE dataset’, Transactions of the Philological Society 3(2): 171–92.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, J. and Kretzschmar, W. 2003. ‘Introducing computational methods in dialectometry’, in Nerbonne, J. and Kretzschmar, W. (eds.), Computational methods in dialectometry (special issue of Computers and the Humanities 37(3)), pp. 245–55.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1996. ‘The comparative method as heuristic’, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novembre, J., Johnson, T., Bryc, K., Kutalik, Z., Boyko, A. R., Auton, A., Indap, A., King, K. S., Bergmann, S., Nelson, M. R., Stephens, M. and Bustamante, C. D. 2008. ‘Genes mirror geography within Europe’, Nature 456: 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli Palmarini, M. 1989. ‘Evolution, selection and cognition: From “learning” to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language’, Cognition 31: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (ed.) 2003. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1992. ‘Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity’, Man 27(3): 445–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D. 1992. ‘On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(1): 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, D., Warnow, T. and Taylor, A. 2002. ‘Indo-European and computational cladistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1): 59–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007. ‘The mystery of the overlooked discipline: Modern syntactic theory and cognitive science’, available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001611.Google Scholar
Sihler, A. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. 1988. ‘Genetic, geographic, and linguistic distances in Europe’, PNAS 85: 1722–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spruit, M. R. 2008. Quantitative perspectives on syntactic variation in Dutch dialects. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufmann, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Cort, T. 2001. ‘Computational evolutionary linguistics: Tree-based models of language change’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvey Mudd College, Pomona, CA.Google Scholar
Warnow, T., Evans, S. N., Ringe, D. and Nakhleh, L. 2004. ‘Stochastic models of language evolution and an application to the Indo-European family of languages’, in Clackson, , Forster, and Renfrew, (eds.), n.p. (available at www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/evans/659.pdf).Google Scholar