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
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional Approaches
- Index
- References
27 - Principles and Parameters
from Part VI - Models and Approaches
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
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional 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. 581 - 628Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adams, J. 1976. ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, Indogermanische Forschungen 81: 70–99.Google Scholar
Adams, J. 2013. ‘Past participle + habeo’, in Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge University Press, pp. 615–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M. 1987. ‘From Old French to the theory of pro-drop’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, A. and Galves, C. 2014. ‘A unified analysis of subject topics in Brazilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 13: 117–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avelar, J. 2009. ‘Inversão locativa e sintaxe de concordância no português brasileiro’, Matraga 16: 232–52.Google Scholar
Avelar, J. and Galves, C. 2011. ‘Tópico e concordância em português brasileiro e português europeu’, in Costa, A., Falé, I. and Barbosa, P. (eds.), Textos seleccionados, XXVI Encontro nacional da associação portuguesa de linguística. Lisbon: APL, pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
Avram, L. 1994. ‘Auxiliary configurations in English and Romanian’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 5–6: 493–510.Google Scholar
Avram, L. and Hill, V. 2007. ‘An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian’, in Aranovich, R. (ed.), Split auxiliary systems: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2001. The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008a. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008b. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 351–74.Google Scholar
Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.) 1995. Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauche, H. 1946. Le langage populaire: Grammaire, syntaxe et dictionnaire du français tel qu’on le parle dans le peuple avec tous les termes d’argot usuel. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Bauer, B. 1995. The emergence and development of SVO patterning in Latin and French. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D. 2016. ‘Split intransitivity’, in Ledgeway, and Martin, (eds.), pp. 821–32.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1950. ‘Actif et moyen dans le verbe’, Journal de Psychologie 43: 119–27. (Reprinted in Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale I. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 168–75.)Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1960. ‘“Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques’, Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris, 55: 113–34. (Reprinted in Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale I. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 187–207.)Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1965. ‘Structure des relations d’auxiliarité’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 9: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besten, H.. 1983. ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’, in Abraham, W. (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 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: 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., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. 2014. ‘Complexity in comparative syntax: The view form modern parametric theory’, in Newmeyer, F. and Preston, L. (eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity. Oxford University Press, pp. 103–27.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012a. ‘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. 2012b. ‘The significance of what hasn’t happened’, paper presented at the 14th conference on Diachronic Generative Syntax, Lisbon, 4 July.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2015a. ‘Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification’, in Chancharu, J., Hu, X. and Mitrović, M. (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–31.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2015b. ‘Clausal hierarchies’, in Shlonsky, U. (ed.), Beyond functional sequence. Oxford University Press, pp. 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. forthcoming a. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, in Kroch, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the XII Diachronic Generative Syntax Meeting. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. forthcoming b. ‘Conditional inversion and types of parametric change’, in Los, B. and de Haan, P. (eds.), Verb-second languages: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. 2014. ‘No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation’, in Santana-LaBarge, R. (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 46–55.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2008. ‘What will you have, DP or NP?’, in Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 101–14.Google Scholar
Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. 1989. ‘Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter’, in Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds.), The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 111–42.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. 2014. ‘Macroparameter learnability: An Algonquian case study’, unpublished MS, Memorial University Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Calboli, G. (ed.) 1989. Subordination and other topics in Latin: Proceedings of the third colloquium on Latin linguistics, Bologna, 1–5 April 1985. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. Oxford University of Press, pp. 115–65.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. 1999. ‘The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns’, in van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 145–235.Google Scholar
Charpin, F. 1989. ‘Etude de syntaxe énonciative: L’ordre des mots et la phrase’, in Calboli, (ed.), pp. 503–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 232–86.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.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 4. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1978. ‘Ergativity’, in Lehmann, W. P. (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas, pp. 329–94.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. and Ledgeway, A. 2010. ‘The Abruzzese T-v system: Feature spreading and the double auxiliary construction’, in D’Alessandro, , Ledgeway, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 201–9.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.) 2010. Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null‐subject parameter’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dankaert, L. 2012. Latin embedded clauses: The left periphery. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauby, J. 1979. Le livre du ‘rouchi’: Parler picard de Valenciennes. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar
Descusses, M. 1986. Le patois ardennais de Gespunsart. Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. 2006. Latin word order: Structured meaning and information. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragomirescu, A. 2010. Ergativitatea: Tipologie, sintaxă, semantică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, A. and Nicolae, A. 2009. ‘Relics of auxiliary selection in Romanian’, unpublished MS, Iorgu Iordan − Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest and University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Duarte, E. 1995. ‘A perda do princípio “evite pronome” no português brasileiro’, unpublished PhD thesis, Unicamp.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1992. ‘On the Greenbergian word-order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013a. ‘Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun’, in Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.). Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/95. Accessed 20 September 2015.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013b. ‘Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of relative clause and noun’, in Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.). Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/96. Accessed 20 September 2015.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info.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
Frellesvig, B. 2010. A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A. 1990. ‘The syntax of Anatolian pronominal clitics’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Giancarli, P.-D. 2011. Les auxiliaires être et avoir: Étude comparée corse, français, acadien et anglais. Rennes: Presses Université de Rennes.Google Scholar
Gray, D. 1985. The Oxford book of late medieval prose and verse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, P. 2012. La complementazione frasale nelle cronache latine dell’Italia centro-meridionale (secoli X-XII). Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 1981. On the position of Warlpiri in a typology of the base. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 1982. ‘Preliminary remarks on configurationality’, in Pustejovsky, J. and Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth annual meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GSLA, pp. 86–96.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 1983. ‘Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M. 1995. ‘Wackernagel’s Law in the Rigveda’, unpublished MS, University of Concordia.Google Scholar
Harder, A. 1998. ‘La declinazione dei verbi in un dialetto di transizione nelle Marche’, in Ruffino, G. (ed.), Atti del XXI congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza. Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, Università di Palermo 18–24 settembre 1995. Volume V, sezione 5, Dialettologia, geolinguistica, sociolinguistica. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 389–99.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E. 2002. ‘A feature-geometric analysis of person and number’, Language 78(3): 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendschel, L. 2012. Li Croejhete walone: Contribution à une grammaire de la langue wallonne. http://home.base.be/vt6134585/croejhete.pdf.Google Scholar
Herman, J. 1989. ‘Accusativus cum infinitivo et subordonné à quod, quia en latin tardif: Nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème’, in Calboli, (ed.), pp. 133–52.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null subject parameters’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 88–124.Google Scholar
Hroársdóttir, Þ. 2000. Word order change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. ‘Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, J. 2015. ‘On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory’, in Li, A., Simpson, A. and Dylan Tsai, W.-T. (eds.), Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. and Roberts, I. Forthcoming. ‘Principles and parameters of universal grammar’, in Roberts, (ed.).Google Scholar
Iannace, G. 1983. Interferenza linguistica ai confini fra Stato e Regno: Il dialetto di San Leucio del Sannio. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. 2000. ‘The grammatical ingredients to counterfactuality’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1972. ‘Subject inversion in French interrogatives’, in Casagrande, J. and Saciuk, B. (eds.), Generative studies in Romance languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 70–126.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1993. ‘Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection’, Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1996. ‘Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks’, in Black, J. and Montapanyane, V. (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialectal variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. ix–xviii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005b. ‘Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French’, in Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), Handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 3–69.Google Scholar
King, R. and Nadasdi, T. 2005. ‘Deux auxiliaires qui voulaient mourir en français acadien’, in Brasseur, P. and Falkert, A. (eds.), Français d’Amérique: Approches morphosyntaxiques. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 103–11.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1995. ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Battye, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 140–69.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The syntax of verb-movement: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2003. ‘L’estensione dell’ausiliare perfettivo avere nell’antico napoletano: Intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali’, Archivio glottologico italiano 88: 27–71.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2011. ‘Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change in Latin and Romance’, in Maiden, M., Smith, J. C. and Ledgeway, A. (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Cambridge University Press, pp. 382–471, 724–34.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012a. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012b. ‘From Latin to Romance: The rise of configurationality, functional categories and head-marking’, in Barδdal, J., Cennamo, M. and van Gelderen, E. (eds.), Variation and change in argument realisation. Oxford: Blackwell. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 422–42.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2013. ‘Greek disguised as Romance? The case of southern Italy’, in Janse, M., Joseph, B. D., Ralli, A. and Bagriacik, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Greek dialects and linguistic theory. Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras, pp.184–228. Available at http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MGDLT5_proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2014a. ‘Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence’, in Pană Dindelegan, G., Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., Nicula, I. and Nicolae, A. (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2014b. ‘Parametrului poziţiei centrului şi efectele sale pragmatice în trecerea de la latină la limbile romance’, in Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A. and Nicolae, A. (eds.), Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, pp. 11–26.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2015. ‘Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 60: 105–27.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2016a. ‘Functional categories’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 761–71.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2016b. ‘Sentential complementation’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 1013–28.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming a. ‘From Latin to Romance: The decline of edge-fronting’, in Cardosa, A. and Martins, A. M. (eds.), Word order change. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming b. ‘Parameters in Romance adverb agreement’, in Hummel, M. and Valera, S. (eds.), Adjective–adverb interfaces in Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming c. ‘Syntheticity and analyticity’, in Dufter, A. and Stark, E. (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax (to appear in series Manual of Romance linguistics, edited by Holtus, G. and Miret, F. Sánchez). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming d. ‘From Latin to Romance syntax: The great leap’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of diachronic and historical linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.) 2016. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K.-M. and Ramsey, S. R. 2011. A history of the Korean language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, G. 2010. ‘A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance’, in D’Alesssandro, , Ledgeway, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 186–200.Google Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1976. ‘Subject and topic: A new typology of language’, in Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–89.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. 2016. ‘Auxiliary selection and participial agreement’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 802–18.Google Scholar
Lüdtke, H. 1974. ‘Die Mundart von Ripatransone – ein sprachtypologisches Kuriosum’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Philologica 5: 173–77.Google Scholar
Lüdtke, H. 1976. ‘La declinazione dei verbi in un dialetto di transizione marchigiano-abruzzese’, Abruzzo 14: 79–84.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. and Robustelli, C. 2007. A Reference grammar of modern Italian. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Mancini, A. M. 1993. ‘Le caratteristiche morfosintattiche del dialetto di Ripatransone (AP), alla luce di nuove ricerche’, in Balducci, S. (ed.), I dialetti delle Marche meridionali. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, pp. 111–36.Google Scholar
Manente, M. 2008. ‘L’aspect, les auxiliaires ‘être’ et ‘avoir’ et l’hypothèse inaccusative dans une perspective comparative français/italien’, unpublished PhD thesis, Universities of Venice and Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generative, 3 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Marouzeau, J. 1949. L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Marouzeau, J. 1953. L’ordre des mots en latin: Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Miller, G. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinelli, P. 1988. Fenomeni della negazione dal latino all’italiano. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Motapanyane, V. (ed.) 2000. Comparative studies in Romanian syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevaci, M. and Todi, A. 2009. ‘The grammaticalization of perfect auxiliaries in Romanian. historical and dialectal aspects’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 54: 137–50.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, G. 2006. ‘The development of the Old Irish system of verbal inflection’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nordahl, H. 1977. ‘Assez avez alé: Estre et avoir comme auxiliaires du verbe aler en ancien français’, Revue romane 12(1): 54–67.Google Scholar
Pană Dindelegan, G. 2013. ‘The participle’, in Dindelegan, G. P. (ed.), The grammar of Romanian. Oxford University Press, pp. 222–32.Google Scholar
Pancheva, R. 2008. ‘Head-directionality of TP in Old Church Slavonic’, in Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. and Bethin, C. (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 16: The Stony Brook meeting, 2007. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 313–32.Google Scholar
Parrino, F. 1967. ‘Su alcune particolarità della coniugazione nel dialetto di Ripatransone’, L’Italia dialettale 30: 156–66.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 1995. ‘The diachronic development of subject clitics in North Eastern Italian dialects’, in Battye, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 295–24.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pollock, J-Y. 2006. ‘Subject-clitic inversion, complex inversion and stylistic inversion in French’, in Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 601–59.Google Scholar
Powell, J. 2010. ‘Hyperbaton and register in Cicero’, in Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin. Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–85.Google Scholar
Rea, B. 2014. ‘Aspects of pronoun and auxiliary morphology in French, with particular reference to spoken Montréal French’, unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2006. A history of English, vol. I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. and Wiltschko, M. 2014. ‘The composition of INFL: An exploration of Tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1331–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986. ‘On the status of subject clitics in Romance’, in Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. and Roberts, I. 1989. ‘Complex inversion in French’, Probus 1: 1–30. (Reprinted in Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.) 1996. Parameters and functional heads. Oxford University Press, pp. 91–118.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010a. ‘Varieties of French and the null subject parameter’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 303–26.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010b. ‘The pronominal domain: DP-NP structure, clitics and null subjects’, in D’Alessandro, , Ledgeway, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010c. Agreement and head movement: Clitics and defective goals. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopez, R. and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press, pp. 320–54.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2013. ‘Some speculations on the development of the Romance periphrastic perfect’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 58(1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2014a. ‘Subject clitics and macroparameters’, in Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Diachrony and dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy. Oxford University Press, pp. 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2014b. ‘Taraldsen’s generalisation and diachronic syntax: Two ways to lose null subjects’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), Functional structure from top to toe: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 9. Oxford University Press, pp. 115–48.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (ed.) Forthcoming. The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 1–57.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvi, G. 2011. ‘A formal approach to Latin word order’, in Oniga, R., Iovino, R. and Giusti, G. (eds.), Formal linguistics and the teaching of Latin: Theoretical and applied perspectives in comparative grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Thibault, P. 1977. ‘L’alternance entre les auxiliaires avoir et être en français parlé à Montréal’, Langue française 34: 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2014. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for alignment’, in Santana-LaBarge, R. E. (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 399–408.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, P. O. 2009. ‘Old Iranian languages’, in Windfuhr, G. (ed.), The Iranian languages. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 43–195.Google Scholar
Smith, J. C. 1999. ‘Markedness and morphosyntactic change revisited: The case of Romance past participle agreement’, in Embleton, S., Joseph, J. and Niederehe, H.-J. (eds.), The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E. F. K. Koerner, vol. 2: Methodological perspectives and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 203–15.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2000. ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, R. and Vance, B. 1999. ‘An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and romance dialects’, DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–84.Google Scholar
Stolova, N. 2006. ‘Split intransitivity in Old Spanish: Irrealis and negation factors’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 2: 301–20.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 1978. ‘On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter’, unpublished MS, MIT.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. 1990. ‘Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. ‘Parameters and effects of word order variation’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Tuttle, E. 1986. ‘The spread of esse as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance’, Medioevo romanzo 11: 229–87.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liaison,’ in Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.) 1997. Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge Universiy Press.Google Scholar
Vanelli, L., Renzi, L. and Benincà, P. 1985. ‘Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes’, in Actes du XVIIe congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, vol. 3: Linguistique descriptive, phonétique, morphologie et lexique. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, pp. 163–76.Google Scholar
Vasseur, G. 1996. Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme) avec considération spéciale du dialecte de Nibas. Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1985. ‘Reichenbach revisited: One, two, or three temporal relations’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N. 1982. ‘The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance’, in Vincent, N. and Harris, M. (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb: Essays offered to Joe Cremona on the occasion of his 60th birthday. London and Canberra: Croom Helm, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1987. ‘The interaction of periphrasis and inflection: Some Romance examples’, in Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), The historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–56.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1988. ‘Latin’, in Harris, M. and Vincent, N. (eds.), The Romance languages. London: Routledge, pp. 26–78.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1997. ‘The emergence of the D-system in Romance’, in van Kemenade, and Vincent, (eds.), pp. 149–69.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1998a. ‘Tra grammatica e grammaticalizzazione: Articoli e clitici nelle lingue (italo)-romanze’, in Ramat, P. and Roma, E. (eds.), Sintassi storica. Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana, Pavia, 26–28 settembre 1996. Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 411–40.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1998b. ‘On the grammar of inflected non-finite forms (with special reference to old Neapolitan)’, in Korzen, I. and Herslund, M. (eds.), Clause combining and text structure (Copenhagen Studies in Language 22). Copenhagen: Samfunds-litteratur, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 2000. ‘Competition and correspondence in syntactic change: Null arguments in Latin and Romance’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1997. ‘The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, and Vincent, (eds.), pp. 380–93.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1963. ‘Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb’, Celtica 6: 1–49.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. 1964. ‘Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure’, in Lunt, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international congress of linguists. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 1035–42.Google Scholar
Watumull, J. 2015. ‘The linguistic Turing machine’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. 2013. ‘Comparing diachronies of negation’, in Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.), The History of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. I: Case studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2015. ‘Restructuring cross-linguistically’, unpublished MS, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Y. 2005. ‘Word order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagida, Y. and Whitman, J. 2009. ‘Alignment and word order in Old Japanese’, Journal of East Asia Asian Linguistics 18: 101–44.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1994. ‘La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé’, in Kleiber, G. and Roques, G. (eds.), Travaux de linguistique et de philologie. Strasbourg-Nancy: Klincksieck, pp. 131–47.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by