Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:58:01.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

Elly Van Gelderen
Elly Van Gelderen
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Third Factors in Language Variation and Change , pp. 200 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abler, William 1989. On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. Journal of Social Biological Structure 12: 1–13.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2016. Types of autonomous subordination: Notably the case of German STOV. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Adli, Aria 2015. What you like is not what you do: Acceptability and frequency in syntactic variation. In Adli, Aria, García, Marco García, and Kaufmann, Göz (Eds.), Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches, 173–200. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk, Salih, Mohammed, and Embick, David 2019. Alignment and argument indexing in the Standard and Garmiani varieties of Sorani Kurdish. NACIL 2 talk.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Alsaeedi, Mekhlid 2015. The rise of new copulas in Arabic. Dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Andrew, M. and Waldron, R. 1978. The Poems of the Pearl Manuscript. Exeter: University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Anklam, Ernst 1908. Das englische Relativ im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Ascham, Roger 1570 [1967]. The Scholemaster. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie 1996. Subject-clitic inversion in Romance: A morphological analysis. In Parodi, C. et al. (Eds.), Aspects of Romance Linguistics, 23–40. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Axel, Katrin 2009. Die Entstehung des dass-Satzes – ein neues Szenario. In Ehrich, Veronika, Fortmann, Christian, Reich, Ingo, and Reis, Marga (Eds.), Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen, 21–41. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin 2017. The development of the declarative complementizer in German. Language 93.2: 29–65.Google Scholar
Bácskai-Atkári, Júlia and Dekány, Éva 2014. From non-finite to finite subordination. In Kiss, Katalin É. (Ed.), The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax, 148–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bahtchevanova, Mariana and van Gelderen, Elly 2016. The French subject cycle and the role of objects. In van Gelderen, Elly (Ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 113–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark 1978. Toward a theory of movement rules. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bartnik, Artur 2011. Noun Phrase Structure in Old English. Lublin: Catholic University of Lublin.Google Scholar
Bately, Janet 1980. The Old English Orosius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef 1984. Comp in Bavarian Syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef and Brandner, Ellen 2008. On wh-head-movement. In Chang, Charles and Haynie, Hannah (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 87–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Benson, Larry 1987. The Riverside Chaucer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Bergh, Gunnar and Seppänen, Aimo 1994. Subject extraction in English: The use of the that-complementizer. In Fernández, Francisco, Fuster, Miguel, and Calvo, Juan José (Eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992, 131–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth 1978. Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, and Leech, Geoffrey 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2017. Factors 2 and 3: A principled approach. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: 38–65.Google Scholar
Blockley, Mary 1989. Old English coordination, apposition, and the syntax of English poetry. Modern Philology 87.2: 115–131.Google Scholar
Blümel, Andreas 2017. Symmetry, Shared Labels and Movement in Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric 2011. Approaching parameters from below. In Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria and Boeckx, Cedric (Eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise, 205–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bont, A. P. de 1962. Dialekt van Kempenland I. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap (Eds.) 2003. Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt am Main: Andreäischen.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2018. On the syntax and prosody of verb second and clitic second. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Bour, Anthony 2014. Description of multiple modality in contemporary Scotland: Double and triple modals in the Scottish Borders. Dissertation, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara 2017. Muttering contempt and smiling appreciation: Disentangling the history of the Reaction Object Construction in English. English Studies 98.2: 194–215.Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara 2019. The growth of the transitivising Reaction Object Construction. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil 1977. A note on the genesis of existential there. English Studies 58.4: 334–348.Google Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil 1983. Existential There. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans 1992. Chain-government. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans 2005. Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky’s On Phases. In Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula, and Koster, Jan (Eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies for Henk van Riemsdijk, 59–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brook, G. and Leslie, R. 1963. Layamon: Brut. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brugè, Laura 1996. Demonstrative movement in Spanish. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6.1: 1–53. http://dspace-unive.cilea.it/bitstream/10278/436/1/6.1.1.pdf.Google Scholar
Brugè, Laura 2002. The position of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In Cinque, Guglielmo (Ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP, 15–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle and Traugott, Elizabeth 2006. “The lady was al demonyak”: Historical aspects of adverb all. English Language and Linguistics 10: 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430600195X.Google Scholar
Butler, Jonny 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 967–996.Google Scholar
Butler, Milton 1980. Grammatically motivated subjects in Early English. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis 1988. Deixis as a noncomplementizer strategy for creole subordination marking. Linguistics 26.3: 335–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callies, Marcus 2018. Patterns of direct transitivization and differences between British and American English. In Kaunisto, Mark et al. (Eds.), Changing Structures: Studies in Constructions and Complementation, 151–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1980. Main clauses, root sentences, and syntactic change. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 9: 39–50.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki, Hornstein, Norbert, and Seely, Daniel 2013. Head movement in Problems of Projection. Unpublished MS. ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001892/v1.pdf.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S. (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Boston: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1977. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Michaels, D., Martin, R., and Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (Ed.), Structures and Beyond, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [published in 2001 in MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36.1: 1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (Eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 291–321. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Di Domenico, Elisa et al. (Eds.), Structures, Strategies, and Beyond, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2016. Puzzles about phases. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2017. Three lectures at the University of Arizona. https://arizona.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=7be79007–580e-4ce3-be6b-86e15ec1d31f.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2019. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/noam-chomsky/Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2020. The UCLA Lectures. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Gallego, Ángel J., and Ott, Dennis 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special issue: 229–261. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8.3: 425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
CLMET. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts [a 34 million word corpus from between 1710 and 1920]. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/517304.Google Scholar
COCA. The Corpus of Contemporary American English [a 520 million word corpus from between 1990 and 2015]. www.americancorpus.org/.Google Scholar
COHA. The Corpus of Historical American English [a 400 million word corpus from between 1800 and 2009]. www.americancorpus.org/.Google Scholar
Coleman, W. 1975. Multiple modals in southern States English. Dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Corpus d’entretiens spontanés. Corpus of Spoken French. www.llas.ac.uk/resourcedownloads/80/mb016corpus.pdf.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (2nd Ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Costa, João, Duarte, Inês Rodrigues, and Silva, Cláudia 2006. Construções de redobro em português brasileiro. Leitura 1.33: 135–145.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette 1977. The Structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jenny and Legendre, Géraldine 2008. Qu’en est-il des clitiques sujet en français oral contemporain? In Durand, J., Habert, B., and Laks, B. (Eds.), Actes du 1er Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 2651–2662. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Dahl, Osten 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 471–480. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dam, Johannes van 1957. The Causal Clause and Causal Prepositions in Early Old English Prose. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
d’Ardenne, S. T. R. O. (Ed.) 1977. The Katherine Group. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “Selection”. Syntax 12.4: 285–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00127.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy 2019. Raising to ergative: Remarks on applicatives of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 50.2: 388–415.Google Scholar
Den Besten, Hans 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In Abraham, Werner (Ed.), On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania, pp. 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985. Hixkaryana and Linguistic Typology. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 1999. Demonstratives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2019. Preposed adverbial clauses: Functional adaptation and diachronic inheritance. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne Maria, and Seržant, Ilja A. (Eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 97–122. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2583812.Google Scholar
Dictionary of Old English (DOE). http://www.doe.utoronto.ca.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna 1989. Double modals as single lexical items. American Speech, 6.3: 195–224.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny 1992. Rightward floating quantifiers float to the left. The Linguistic Review 9.4: 313–332.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal 2000. Clauses without “That”. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew 2013. Expression of pronominal subjects. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/101.Google Scholar
Duarte, Maria Eugênia. 2000. The loss of the “avoid pronoun” principle in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, Mary and Negrão, Esmeralda (Eds.),The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, 17–36. Frankfurt and Madrid: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Edwards, Malcolm 2006. Pronouns, agreement and focus in Egyptian Arabic. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 51–62.Google Scholar
Eid, Mushira 1983. The copula function of pronouns. Lingua 59: 197–207.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, Marion 2007. The Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb–Particle Combination. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
ELICOP. Corpus of spoken French [a 902,755 word corpus from between 1966 and 1970; includes the Orléans, Tours, and Auvergne corpora]. http://bach.arts.kuleuven.be/pmertens/corpus/search/t.html.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel, Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Seely, Daniel 2016. Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. Linguistic Review 33.1: 87–102.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. 1980. On the history of subject contact-clauses in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 139–170.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka 2014. Anti-locality and Kaqchikel agent focus. In Santana-LaBarge, Robert E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 150–159. Somerville: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34.2: 429–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka 2020. Anti-locality and subject extraction. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, 366–431. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur 1995. Verbal Syntax in the Early Germanic Languages. Dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Faltz, Aryeh 1973. Surrogate copulas in Hebrew. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem, and van der Wurff, Wim 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, de Smet, Hendrik, and van der Wurff, Wim 2017. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susann, Navarro, Mario, and Vilanova, Jorge Vega 2019. The clitic doubling parameter. In Breitbarth, Anne, Bouzouita, Miriam, Danckaert, Lieven, and Witzenhausen, Elisabeth (Eds.), Cycles in Language Change, 52–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, Bonnibeth 2000. The change from pronoun to clitic and the rise of null subjects in spoken Swiss French. Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Forshall, J. and Madden, F. (Eds.) 1850. The Holy Bible Containing The Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal Books in the Earliest English Versions, Made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers, 4 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foulet, Lucien 1919 [1961]. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien françois (3rd Ed.). Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Franco, Jon Andoni 1993. On object agreement in Spanish. Dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fulk, R. D., Bjork, Robert, and Niles, John (Eds.) 2008. Klaeber’s Beowulf. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric 2005. The Rise of Agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg von der 1891 [1901]. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel. [reprint Tübingen: Narr, 1972].Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 1997. Verbal Agreement and the Grammar behind Its “Breakdown”: Minimalist Feature Checking. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2007. The definiteness cycle in Germanic, Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.4: 275–305.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2009. Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementizer layer, Transactions of the Philological Society 107.2 (2009): 131–195.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2013. Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2015a. How. In Bayer, Josef et al. (Eds.), Discourse-Oriented Syntax, 159–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2015b. The copula cycle, Copulas in Lingue e Linguaggio 14.2: 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1418/81753.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2016. Features and Affix-hop. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63.1: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2016.63.1.1.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2018a. Problems of projection: The role of language change in labeling paradoxes. Studia Linguistica 72.1: 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12041.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2018b. The Diachrony of Verb Meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2019. Cyclical change and problems of projection. In Breitbarth, Anne, Bouzouita, Miriam, Danckaert, Lieven, and Witzenhausen, Elisabeth (Eds.), Cycles in Language Change, 13–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giannikidou, Anastasia 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibert-Sotelo, Elisabeth 2021. Cyclical change in affixal negation. In Alboiu, Gabriela and King, Ruth (Eds.), Points of Convergence in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Girard, Francine 2010. Le statut des clitiques sujets cadiens. www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/articles/cmlf/pdf/2010/01/cmlf2010_000209.pdf.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana 1997. The categorical status of determiners. In Haegeman, Liliane (Ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, 95–124. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases: A base phrase structure approach. In Cinque, Guglielmo (Ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP, 54–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Li, Charles (ed.) Subject and Topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas 1979. From discourse to syntax. In Givón, Talmy (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax: Syntax and Semantics 12, 81–112. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas 1991. The evolution of dependent-clause syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, 257–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas 2015. The Diachrony of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas 2018. On Understanding Grammar (Revised Edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glinert, Lewis 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goto, Nobu 2015. On labeling: In search of unconstrained merge. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxnb3RvdW5vYnV8Z3g6YzY2MGQzNDUzMWUxZTQy.Google Scholar
Goto, Nobu and Ishii, Toru 2019. The principle of determinacy and its implications for MERGE. In Proceedings of the 12th GLOW in Asia & 21st SICOGG, 91–110. http://sicogg.or.kr/GLOW-Asia-12-2019/proceedings/.Google Scholar
Gradon, Pamela 1965. Dan Michel’s Ayenbite of Inwyt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph (Ed.), Universals of Language, 40–70. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, Joseph (Ed.), Universals of Human Language, 3, 47–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28.3: 373–422.Google Scholar
Groot, Herre de 1959. Wyclif’s translation of the Gospel of John (as extracted from his sermons), II: The text. Dissertation, University of Montréal.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes 2011. Anti-locality: Too-close relations in grammar. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, 260–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grossmann, Heinrich 1906. Das Angelsächsische Relativ. Dissertation, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine 2010. On the event-relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18.1: 79–114.Google Scholar
Haden Elgin, Suzette and Haden, Rebecca. 1991. A Celebration of Ozark English: A Collection of Articles from the Lonesome Node, 1980 to 1990. Huntsville: OCLS Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric 2002a. Observations on the loss of Verb Second in the history of English. In Jan-Wouter Zwart, C. and Abraham, Werner (Eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax: Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, 245–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002b. Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind & Language 18.4: 317–339.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane 2006. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the left periphery. In Zanuttini, Rafaella et al. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics, 27–52. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and van Koppen, Marjo 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between co and to. Linguistic Inquiry 43.3: 441–454.Google Scholar
Haeringen, C. B. van 1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert 1986. V-Second in German. In Haider, Hubert and Prinzhorn, Martin (Eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, 49–76. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert 1991. Null subjects and expletives in Romance and Germanic languages. In Abraham, Werner, Kosmeijer, Wim and Reuland, Eric (Eds.), Issues in Germanic Syntax, 49–66. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey 2015. Ergativity in Iranian. www.academia.edu/15321950/Ergativity_in_Iranian.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey 2018a. The grammaticalization of object pronouns. Linguistics 56.4: 781–818.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey 2018b. Grammaticalization and inflectionalization in Iranian. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective, 57–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John 1974. Targets and Syntactic Change. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken 1973. Person marking in Warlbiri. In Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 308–344. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Indo-European. In Dixon, R. (Ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Language, 78–105. Canberra: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Halila, Hafedh 1992. Subject specificity effects in Tunisian Arabic. Dissertation, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin 1977. ‘Demonstratives’, ‘articles’ and ‘third person pronouns’ in French: Changes in progress. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 93: 249–261.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2018. Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3008134/component/file_3008135/content.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and the APiCS Consortium 2013. Expression of pronominal subjects. In Michaelis, Susanne M., Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin, and Huber, Magnus (Eds.), The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://apics-online.info/.Google Scholar
Hasty, J. Daniel 2012. We might should oughta take a second look at this: A syntactic re-analysis of double modals in Southern United States English. Lingua 122.14: 1716–1738.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason 2008. Morphology at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Higashiizumi, Yuko 2006. From a Subordinate Clause to an Independent Clause. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane 1987. Spanish as a pronominal argument language: The Spanish interlanguage of Mexicano speakers. Coyote Papers 6: 68–90.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland 2018. V2 in the split CP: The case of German. http://demines.del.auth.gr/files/Hinterhoelzl_V2_in_the_split_CP_Handout.pdf.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland and van Kemenade, Ans 2012. The Interaction between syntax, information structure, and prosody in word order change. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, James 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Königlichen Akademie des Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1977. X-Bar Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Dan 2006. The historical origins of the “that-trace effect”. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.53.8378&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jansen, Bernd and Schlenck, Klaus-Jürgen 1991. Subjectless relative clauses in Early Modern English: Ellipsis of relative pronoun or contact clauses? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 92.1: 47–61.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise 2001. Pronouns and argument hierarchies. Utrecht talk.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1921. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1927. A Modern English Grammar III. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1937. Analytic Syntax. London.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1942. A Modern English Grammar VI. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes 2005. Negation in Old High German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24.2: 227–262.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes 2010. Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte 224: 467–493.Google Scholar
Kareem, Rabeen Abdullah 2016. The syntax of verbal inflection in central Kurdish. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Katz, Aya 1996. Cyclical grammaticalization and the cognitive link between pronoun and copula. PhD dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Benincà, P. (Ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van 2009. Discourse relations and word order change. In Hinterhölzl, Roland and Petrova, Svetlana (Eds.), Information Structure and Language Change, 91–120. Berlin De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (Eds.), The Handbook of the History of English, 224–248. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha and Mathew, Rosmin 2006. Relating to relatives: The cyclicity of SIMPL. www.academia.edu/5142395/Relating_to_Relatives_The_Cyclicity_of_SIMPL_with_Rosmin_Mathew.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian (Eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, 140–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 2011. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John, and Garrett, Andrew (Eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, 15–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Condoravdi, Cleo 2006. Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle. In Janse, Mark, Joseph, Brian, and Ralli, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Mytilene: Doukas.Google Scholar
Knorrek, Marianne 1938. Der Einfluß des Rationalismus auf die englische Sprache. Breslau: Paul Plischke.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf and Zeijlstra, Hedde 2017. Introducing Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. and Lunkenheimer, K. (Eds.) 2013. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://ewave-atlas.org.Google Scholar
Krapp, G. P. and Kirk Dobbie, E. V. 1936. The Exeter Book. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Krivochen, Diego 2020. On workspaces in syntax. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony and Taylor, Ann 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, Ans and Vincent, Nigel (Eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, William 2017. Free Merge, Agree, & Phase-Cancellation: An account of (anti-)that-trace effect. In Bui, T. and Ozyildiz, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS47). Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kruger, William 2019. Isomorphy and syntax–prosody relations in English. Dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Kural, M. 1993. V-to(I-to)C in Turkish. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11: 1–37.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Poser, W. (Ed.), Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, 103–143. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja 1993. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English texts (2nd ed.). Helsinki: Department of English.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud 1981. Topic, Antitopic, and Verb Agreement in Non Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud and Lemoine, Kevin 1996. Vers une grammaire des compléments zéro en francais parlé. In Chuquet, Jean and Fryd, Marc (Eds.), Travaux linguistiques de CERLICO 9, 279–309. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, Meri 2000. Présence ou absence de l’object. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
L’Arrivée, Pierre 2010. The pragmatic motics of the Jespersen Cycle: Default, activation, and the history of negation in French. Lingua 120.9: 2240–2258.Google Scholar
L’Arrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard (Eds.) 2011. The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of the derivation. In Rothstein, S. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, 209–239. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Kee-dong 1975. Kusaiean Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie 2014. Under-inheritance. NELS 42 talk.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred 1976. From topic to subject in Indo-European. In Li, Charles, (Ed.), Subject and Topic, 445–456. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred 1993. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, Fang Kuei 1967. Chipewyan. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology.Google Scholar
Li, Charles and Thompson, Sandra. 1977. A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes. In Li, Charles (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 414–444. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lindberg, C. 1978. The Middle English Bible: Prefatory Epistles of St. Jerome. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1968. Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe 2005. A minimalist program for parametric linguistics? In Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula, and Koster, Jan (Eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies for Henk van Riemsdijk, 407–414, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio 1995. Ancient Egyptian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English. English Language and Linguistics 13.1: 97–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674308002876.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou 2012. The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli et al. (Eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, 21–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou 2018. Permissive subjects and the decline of adverbial linking in the history of English. In Cuyckens, Hubert, De Smet, Hendrik, Heyvaert, Liesbet, and Maekelberghe, Charlotte (Eds.), Explorations in English Historical Syntax, 23–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou and Dreschler, Gea 2012. The loss of local anchoring: From adverbial local anchors to permissive subjects. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, 859–871. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou and van Kemenade, Ans 2018. Syntax and the morphology of deixis: The loss of demonstratives in the history of English. In Coniglio, Marco, Murphy, Andrew, Schlachter, Eva, Veenstra, Tonjes et al. (Eds.), Atypical Demonstratives: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, 127–158. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lyons, John 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3.4: 390–396.Google Scholar
Maddox, Matthew 2019. Cycles of agreement: Romance clitics in diachrony. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie. 1978. The non-universality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 475–497.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Jim 1991. Verb fronting, verb second and the left edge of IP in Irish. Paper presented at the Stuttgart Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick 2006. Grammaticalization of demonstratives as subordinate complementizers in Ngumpin-Yapa. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26.1: 107–137.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John 1997. Towards a New Model of Creole Genesis. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John 2005. Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. (1921 [1912, 1958]) L’Évolution des formes grammaticales. In Champion, Édouard (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique Générale, 130–148. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary 1993. Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary 2019. The Oxford Gothic Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Thomas 1890–1898. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. London: Trübner and Co.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce 1985. Old English Syntax II. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 1991. The development of Bnound pronominal paradigms. In Lehmann, Winfred and Hewitt, Helen-Jo Jakusz (Eds.), Language Typology 1988, 85–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2000. The reordering of morphemes. In Gildea, Spike (Ed.), Reconstructing Grammar, 231–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84.1: 69–119.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2016. What cycles when and why? In van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 19–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mizuguchi, Manabu 2017. Labelability and interpretability. Studies in Generative Grammar 27.2: 327–365.Google Scholar
Mizuguchi, Manabu 2019. Ambiguous labeling and full interpretation. Studia Linguistica 73.3: 563–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12109.Google Scholar
Morin, Yves-Charles 1979. La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français populaire. Cahier de Linguistique 9: 1–36. https://doi.org/10.7202/800076ar.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea 1995. Small clauses with predicative nominals. In Cardinaletti, Anna and Guasti, Maria Teresa (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 28, 109–132. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon 2009. Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree. In Grohmann, Kleanthes (Ed.), Explorations of Phase Theory, 269–308. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko 1994. Double modals in American Southern English: How peculiar are they? Contemporary Linguistics 1: 89–104.Google Scholar
Murphy, Elliot and Shim, Jae-Young 2018. Copy invisibility, (non-)categorial labeling and feature embedding. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno 1960 [2016]. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique [reprinted by John Benjamins].Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nakao, Chizuru and Obata, Miki 2007. Parametric variations in NPI-licensing and the role of LF X0 movement. www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Parametric-Variations-in-NPI-Licensing-and-the-Role-Nakao-Obata/91f7650978a1e846faa36c33a2d0b653439d1c81.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 1997. Recycling inversion. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 31: 203–214.Google Scholar
Noailly, M. 1997. Les mystères de la transitivité invisible. Languages 127: 96–109.Google Scholar
Obata, Miki, Epstein, Samuel, and Baptista, Marlyse 2015. Can crosslinguistically variant grammars be formally identical? Third factor underspecification and the possible elimination of parameters of UG. Lingua 156: 1–16.Google Scholar
OED 1933. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, and OED online.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco, Bernstein, Judy, and Roca, Francesc 2019. Emphatic pronouns and the development of definite articles. DIGS 21 paper, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
Oseki, Yohei 2015. Eliminating pair-merge. In Steindl, Ulrike et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 303–312. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis 2012. Local Instability. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pauwels, J.L. 1959. Afrikaans hierdie daardie. Leuvense Bijdragen 48.1/2: 1–3.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 1982. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. The Linguistic Review 1.3: 297–343.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan 1993. Verb seconding in Old English. The Linguistic Review 10: 5–35.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan and Taylor, Ann 2004. Objects in Old English: Why and how early English is not Icelandic. York Papers in Linguistics, Series 2 1: 1137–1150.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer 1983. Germanic word order and the COMP/INFL parameter. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 2: 1–45.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer 1987. The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics Special Issue: 215–238.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer and Holmberg, Anders 1989. The role of AGR and finiteness. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43: 51–76.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quarezemin, Sandra 2020. Brazilian double subjects and sentence structure. In Oliveira, Roberta Pires De, Emmel, Ina, and Quarezemin, Sandra (Eds.), Brazilian Portuguese, Syntax and Semantics, 107–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph 1951. Expletive or existential there. London Mediaeval Studies 2.1: 32.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Wrenn, C. L. 1955 [1977]. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew 2000. Children in search of perfection: Towards a minimalist model of acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 34. Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew 2019. Relative Clauses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raidt, Esther 1993. Linguistic variants and language change: Deictic variants in some German and Dutch dialects vis-à-vis Afrikaans. In van Marle, Jaap (Ed.), Historical Linguistics 1991, 281–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, Janina 2019. Regularity and variation in French direct interrogatives. Dissertation, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya 2006. Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38.3: 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc 2009. Internal Pair-Merge: The missing mode of movement. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 55–73.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc and Biberauer, Theresa 2005. Explaining Expl. In den Dikken, Marcel and Tortora, Christina (Eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, 115–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti 2007. From oþ to till: Early loss of an adverbial subordinator. In Lenker, Ursula and Meurman-Solin, Anneli (Eds.), Connectives in the History of English, 61–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1980. Violations of the WH island constraint in Italian and the Subjacency Condition. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 157–195. (Reprinted in Rizzi 1982, 49–76).Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (Ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 2001. On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the Left Periphery of the Clause. In Cinque, Guglielmo et al. (Eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 2006. On the form of chains. In Cheng, Lisa and Corver, Norbert (Eds.), On Wh Movement, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi 2014. Cartography, criteria, and labeling. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi and Shlonsky, Ur 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (Eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberge, Yves 1990. The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian 1996. Remarks on the Old English C-system and the diachrony of V2. In Brandner, Ellen and Ferraresi, Gisella (Eds.), Language Change and Generative Grammar, 154–167. Opladen: Westdeutsche Verlag.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian 2010. A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Biberauer, Theresa et al. (Eds.), Parametric Variation, 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna 2003. Syntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, John 1980. The Structure of Pronoun Incorporation in the Mayan Verbal Complex. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 200. Nominal complements. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (Eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, 194–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2018a. Patterns of direct transitivization and differences between British and American English. In Kaunisto, Mark, Höglund, Mikko, and Rickman, Paul (Eds.), Changing Structures: Studies in Constructions and Complementation, 129–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2018b. On the differential evolution of simple and complex object constructions in English. In Cuyckens, Hubert et al. (Eds.), Explorations in English Historical Syntax, 77–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Todd, William (Ed.), Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, 77–102. Evanston: Great Expectations.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm 2004. The morphosyntactic typology of Oceanic languages. Language and Linguistics 5.2: 491–541.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan 2001. Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats 1966. Relative Constructions in Early Sixteenth Century English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Schnell, Stefan 2018. Whence subject-verb agreement? Investigating the role of topicality, accessibility, and frequency in Vera’a texts. Linguistics 56.4: 735–780. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0010.Google Scholar
Scragg, Donald 1992. The Vercelli Homilies and Related Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaul, Dave 1986. Topics in Nevome Syntax. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi 1991.Grammaticalization of topic into subject. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization II, 93–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shim, Jae-Young 2018. <φ, φ>-less labeling. Language Research 54.1: 23–39.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur and Rizzi, Luigi 2019. Criterial freezing and the cartography of copular constructions. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna 2013. Verbal person marking. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (Eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, chapter 102. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/feature/102.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna and Bakker, Dik 2005. The agreement cross-reference continuum. In de Groot, Casper and Hengeveld, Kees (Eds.), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, 203–248. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (Ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Skeat, Walter 1881–1887 (Ed.). The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. Cambridge [reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft].Google Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, van der Horst, Joop, and van de Velde, Freek 2017. Another look at the Germanic Sandwich. Leuvense Bijdragen 101: 77–81.Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morpho-syntax. Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Souza, Elizete Maria 2007. O uso do pronome ‘eles’ como recurso de indeterminação de sujeito. Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure, Linguistic Inquiry 19.2: 425–451.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique 1996. Clitic constructions. In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 213–276. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10: 80–126.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert 1977. Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. In Li, Charles (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 291–314. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Stoelke, H. 1916. Die Inkongruenz zwischen Subjekt und Prädikat im Englischen und in den verwandten Sprachen. Dissertation, University of Marburg.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim 1978. What was there before there was there? In Farkas, D. et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 457–471. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Sullens, I. (Ed.) 1983. Robert Mannyng’s Handlyng Synne. Binghampton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.3: 391–434.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry 1871 [1934]. King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takita, Kensuke 2019. Labeling for linearization. The Linguistic Review 37.1: 75–116.Google Scholar
Takita, Kensuke, Goto, Nobu, and Shibata, Yoshiyuki 2016. Labeling through Spell-Out. The Linguistic Review 33.1: 177–198.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald 1980. On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Tauli, Valter 1958. The Structural Tendencies of Languages. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M. (Ed.) 1958. Þe Wohunge of Ure Lauerd. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thorpe, Benjamin 1861. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle I and II. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Toribio, Jacqueline 2000. Setting parametric limits on dialectal variation in Spanish. Lingua 110: 315–341.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth 2017. ‘Insubordination’ in the light of the Uniformitarian Principle. English Language and Linguistics 21.2: 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000144.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and König, Ekkehard 1991. The semantics–pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization I, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. 2007. Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change, 19: 101–135.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert 2007. Locality of movement and the individuation of events. Dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert 2011. Events, Phrases and questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valian, Virginia 1991. Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40: 21–81.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan and Vossen, Frens 2016. Jespersen cycles in the Mayan, Quechuan and Maipurean languages. In van Gelderen, Elly (Ed.), Cyclical Change Continued, 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.227.07auw.Google Scholar
Veenstra, Tonjes 2014. The copular system in Surinamese creoles. Workshop on Copulas, Bologna.Google Scholar
Venneman, Theo 1974. Topics, subjects, and word order. In Anderson, J. M. and Jones, C. (Eds.), Historical Linguistics I, 339–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vindenes, Urd 2018. Cyclic renewal of demonstratives. Studies in Language 42.3: 641–668.Google Scholar
Visser, F. 1946–1952. A Syntax of the English Language of St. Thomas More. Leuven: Librairie universitaire.Google Scholar
Visser, F. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, 3 Volumes. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vogelaer, Gunther de and Neuckermans, Annemie 2002. Subject doubling in Dutch: A dialect phenomenon in cross-linguistic perspective. STUF: Language Typology and Universals 55.3: 234–258.Google Scholar
Vossen, Frens and van der Auwera, Johan 2014. The Jespersen cycles seen from Austronesian. In Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Visconti, Jacqueline (Eds.), The Diachrony of Negation, 47–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Weir, Helen 1986. Footprints of yesterday’s syntax: Diachronic development of certain verb prefixes in an OSV language (Nadëb). Lingua 68: 291–316.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut 2005. Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148–166.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut 2007. A question of relevance: Some remarks on standard languages. In Penke, Martina and Rosenbach, Anette (Eds.), What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics: The Case of Innateness, 181–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut 2019. Rebracketing and the Early Merge Principle. Diachronica 36.4: 509–545.Google Scholar
Willis, David 2007. Specifier-to-head reanalyses in the complementizer domain: Evidence from Welsh, Transactions of the Philological Society 105.3, 432–480.Google Scholar
Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher, and Breitbarth, Anne (Eds.) 2013. The History of Negation in the Language of Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Daniel 2018. Copular and Existential Sentences in Biblical Hebrew. Dissertation, University of the Free State.Google Scholar
Wind, Maarten de 1995. Inversion in French. Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wood, Johanna. 2007. Is there a DP in Old English? In Salmons, Joseph C. and Dubenion-Smith, Shannon (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 167–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Woods, Rebecca and Wolfe, Sam (Eds.) 2020. Rethinking Verb Second. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yanagi, Tomohiro 2008. On the position of the OE quantifier eall and PDE all. In Gotti, Maurizio et al. (Eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006, Volume I: Syntax and Morphology, 109–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yanagi, Tomohiro 2012. Some notes on the distribution of the quantifier all in Middle English. In Markus, Manfred et al. (Eds.), Middle and Modern English Corpus Linguistics: A Multi-Dimensional Approach, 141–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zdrojewski, Pablo and Sánchez, Liliana 2014. Variation in accusative clitic doubling across three Spanish dialects. Lingua 151: 162–176.Google Scholar
Zepeda, Ofelia 1983 [1994]. A Papago Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter 2005. Verb second as a function of Merge. In den Dikken, Marcel and Tortora, Christina (Eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Elly Van Gelderen, Arizona State University
  • Book: Third Factors in Language Variation and Change
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108923408.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Elly Van Gelderen, Arizona State University
  • Book: Third Factors in Language Variation and Change
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108923408.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Elly Van Gelderen, Arizona State University
  • Book: Third Factors in Language Variation and Change
  • Online publication: 16 December 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108923408.009
Available formats
×