Aitchison, J. 2003. ‘Psycholinguistic perspectives on language change’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 736–43.Google Scholar

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

Baker, J., Archangeli, D. and Mielke, J. 2011. ‘Variability in English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem’, Language Variation & Change 23: 347–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2006. ‘Phonological change in Optimality Theory’, in Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 9, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2007. ‘Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC)’, in Bisetto, A. and Barbieri, F. (eds.), Proceedings of XXXIII incontro di grammatica generativa, pp. 86–105.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Linearising disharmonic word orders: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Yoon, J. Y. and Kim, K.-A. (eds.), Perspectives on linguistics in the 21st Century. Seoul: Hankook Munhwasa, pp. 301–18.Google Scholar

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

Biberauer, T., Newton, G. and Sheehan, M. 2009. ‘Limiting synchronic and diachronic variation and change: the Final-Over-Final Constraint’, Language and Linguistics 10: 701–43.Google Scholar

Börjars, K. and Vincent, N. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and directionality’, in Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 163–76.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 1975. ‘Constraints on sound change’, in Dahlstedt, K.-H. (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics, vol. 2. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 388–406.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J., Adger, D. and Fox, S. 2013. ‘Relative who and the actuation problem’, Lingua 126: 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. 1986. ‘The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order’, Second Language Research 2: 93–119.Google Scholar

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

Eitler, T. 2006. ‘Some sociolectal, dialectal and communicative aspects of word order variation in late Middle English’, unpublished PhD thesis, Eötvös Loránd University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrar, K. and Jones, M.C. 2002. ‘Introduction’, in Jones, M. C. and Esch, E. (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external, and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Filppula, M. 2010. ‘Contact and the early history of English’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Oxford University Press, pp. 432–53.Google Scholar

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

Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M. and Sayehli, S. 2002. ‘Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing’, Second Language Research 18: 250–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Hawkins, J. A. 1990. ‘A parsing theory of word order universals’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–61.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 2002a. ‘Symmetries and asymmetries: Their grammar, typology and parsing’, Theoretical Linguistics 28: 95–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 2002b. ‘Issues at the performance-grammar interface: Some comments on the commentaries’, Theoretical Linguistics 28: 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 2007. ‘Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it’, New Ideas in Psychology 25: 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. 1948. ‘Studies in the logic of explanation’, Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2000. ‘Deriving OV order in Finnish’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–52.Google Scholar

Holt, D. E. (ed.) 2000. Optimality theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ingason, A. K., Sigurðsson, E. F. and Wallenberg, J. C. 2012. ‘Antisocial syntax: Disentangling the Icelandic VO/OV parameter and its lexical remains’, paper presented at DiGS 14, Lisbon, 6 July.Google Scholar

King, R. D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

King, R. 2000. The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island case study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kroch, A. S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2: 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 2000. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 629–739.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1982. ‘Building on empirical foundations’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 2007. ‘Transmission and diffusion’, Language 83: 344–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, W. and Harris, W. A. 1986. ‘De facto segregation of Black and White vernaculars’, in Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diversity and diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

Lewens, T. 2007. ‘Cultural evolution’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/. Accessed 2 November 2012.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 2002. ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 2013. ‘Types of explanation in history’, Language (Historical Syntax) 89: e18–e39.Google Scholar

Lohndal, T. 2009. ‘The copula cycle’, in van Gelderen, E. (ed.), Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–42.Google Scholar

Lucas, C. 2009. ‘The development of negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. 1976. Evolution and the diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

McMahon, A. M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meillet, A. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 1st edn. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers-Scotton, C. 2003. ‘What lies beneath: Split (mixed) languages as contact phenomena’, in Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Naro, A. 1981. ‘The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change’, Language 57: 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Paul, H. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 1st edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

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

Pintzuk, S. 2003. ‘Variationist approaches to syntactic change’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 509–28.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. 2005. ‘Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 1999. ‘A formal approach to “grammaticalization”’, Linguistics 37: 1011–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sober, E. 1980. ‘Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism’, Philosophy of Science 47: 350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, 141–77.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van Coetsem, F. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Coetsem, F. 1995. ‘Outlining a model of the transmission phenomenon in language contact’, Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 63–85.Google Scholar

van Coetsem, F. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

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

van Gelderen, E. 2009. ‘Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer’, Transactions of the Philological Society 107: 131–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Walkden, G. 2009. ‘Deriving the Final-over-Final Constraint from third factor considerations’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5: 67–72.Google Scholar

Walkden, G. 2012. ‘Against inertia’, Lingua 122: 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weerman, F. 1993. ‘The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: the change from OV to VO’, Linguistics 31: 903–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar

Winford, D. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Winford, D. 2005. ‘Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes’, Diachronica 22: 373–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, M. 1987. ‘From Old French to the theory of pro-drop’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adger, D., Heycock, C., Smith, J. and Thoms, G. 2013. ‘Remarks on negation in varieties of Scots’, paper presented at the workshop ‘The Comparative Syntax of English’, University of Cambridge, 7 November.Google Scholar

Battistella, E. and Lobeck, A. 1991. ‘On verb fronting, inflection movement, and Aux support’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 36: 225–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP-parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Eythórssen, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Subjects, Tense and verb movement’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 263–302.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘The significance of what hasn’t happened’, paper presented at the 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference, Lisbon, 4 July.Google Scholar

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

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

Chow, W. H. 1995. ‘Wh-questions in Singapore colloquial English’, unpublished honours thesis, Department of English Language and Literature, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar

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

Denison, D. 1985. ‘The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered’, in Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W. F. and van der Leek, F. (eds.), Papers from the 4th international conference on historical linguistics, Amsterdam, April 10–13, 1985. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. E. and Faarlund, J. T. 2014. English: The language of the Vikings (Olomouc Modern Language Monographs 3). Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar

Fuß, E. 1998. ‘Zur Diachronie vom Verbzweit’, MA thesis, University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar

Fuß, E. and Trips, C. 2002. ‘Variation and change in Old and Middle English: On the validity of the Double Base Hypothesis’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haeberli, E. 1999. ‘Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Synchronic and diachronic variation in the Germanic languages’, PhD thesis, University of Geneva (published as Haeberli, E. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S. and Wilson, F. 2013. ‘Acquisition in variation (and vice versa): V-to-T in Faroese children’, Language Acquisition 20(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Vikner, S. and Wilson, F. 2011. ‘Residual V-to-I in Faroese and its lack in Danish: Detecting the final stages of a syntactic change’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 87: 137–65.Google Scholar

Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Vikner, S. and Wilson, F. 2012. ‘Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese’, Language 88(3): 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hróarsdóttir, T. 1999. ‘Verb phrase syntax in the history of Icelandic’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Hróarsdottir, T. 2000. Word order change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ihalainen, O. 1991. ‘Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset’, in Trudgill, P. and Chambers, J. K. (eds.), Dialects of English: Studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman, pp. 148–60.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles I-VII. London and Copenhagen: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

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

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

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar

Lehmann, W. 1973. ‘A structural principle of language and its implications’, Language 49: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

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

Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Niyogi, P and Berwick, R. 1997. ‘A dynamical systems model for language change’, Complex Systems 11: 161–204.Google Scholar

Platzack, C. 1995. ‘The loss of verb second and English and French’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 200–26.Google 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. 2001. ‘Language change and learnability’, in Bertolo, S. (ed.), Parametric linguistics and learnability. Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–125.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Sheehan, M. and Roberts, I. 2015. ‘A parameter hierarchy for passives’, talk given at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University College London, 18 September.Google Scholar

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

van Kemenade, A. 1997. ‘V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 326–52.Google Scholar

Vance, B. 1988. ‘Null subjects and syntactic change in medieval French’, unpublished PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in medieval French: Verb second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1974. ‘Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX’, in Anderson, J. and Jones, C. (eds.), Historical linguistics: Proceedings of the first international congress of historical linguistics, Edinburgh, September 1973, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 339–76.Google Scholar

Walkden, G. 2012. ‘Against Inertia’, Lingua 122: 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. 1997. ‘The structure of parametric change, and V movement in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 380–93.Google Scholar

Willis, D. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb second. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zhiming, B. 2001. ‘The origins of empty categories in Singapore English’, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 16: 275–319.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G. 1983. ‘Cliticisation vs. inflection: English n’t’, Language 59: 502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, C. 1990. ‘Review of van Kemenade, Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English’, Language 66: 146–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentzen, K. 2005. ‘What’s the better move?’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.2: 153–88.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 267–94.Google Scholar

Bohnacker, U. and Christina, R. 2007. ‘How to start a V2 declarative clause: Transfer of syntax vs. information structure in L2 German’, Nordlyd 34(3): 29–56.Google Scholar

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

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

Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Durrleman-Tame, S. 2008. The syntax of Jamaican creole: A cartographic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eitler, T. and Westergaard, M. 2014. ‘Word order variation in late Middle English: The effect of information structure and audience design’, in Bech, K. and Eide, K. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Faarlund, J. T. 2000. ‘Reanalysis in word order stability and change’, in Sornicola, R., Poppe, E. and Shisha-Halevy, A. (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 119–32.Google Scholar

Falk, C. 1993. ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, Lund University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gregersen, F. and Pedersen, I. L. 1997. ‘Hovedsætningsordstilling i underordnede sætninger’ [Main clause word order in embedded clauses], Danske Folkemål 39: 55–112.Google Scholar

Gupta, A. 1994. The step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Haeberli, E. 2002. ‘Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 88–106.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hróarsdóttir, T. 2004. ‘Cues and expressions’, Nordlyd 32(1): 135–55.Google Scholar

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

Iversen, R. 1973. ‘Om sluttstilling av verbet i norsk folkemål’ [On the final position of the verb in Norwegian spoken language], in Beito, O. T. and Hoff, I. (eds.), Frå norsk målføregransking: Utvalde utgreiingar 1908–1969. Oslo, Bergen and Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

Jonas, D. 2002. ‘Residual V-to-I’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation,’ in Beals, K. et al (eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 2: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change,’ in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Cambridge, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699–729.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palmer, F. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar

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

Pintzuk, S. 2002. ‘Verb-object order in Old English: Variation as grammatical competition’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), pp. 276–99.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. 2014. Word order in Old Italian. Oxford University Press.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. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roeper, T. 1999. ‘Universal bilingualism’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3): 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sollid, H. 2003. ‘Dialektsyntaks i Nordreisa: Språkdannelse og stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk’ [Dialect syntax in Nordreisa: Language creation and stabilization in a contact situation between Kven-Finnish and Norwegian], unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2010. ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’, in Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. ‘First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English’, International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3): 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Valian, V. 1990. ‘Null subjects: A problem for parameter-setting models of language acquisition’, Cognition 35(2): 105–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Valian, V. 1991. ‘Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children’, Cognition 40: 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic Case and morphological case in the history of English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Kemenade, A. and Westergaard, M. 2012. ‘Syntax and information structure: Verb-second variation in Middle English’, in Meurman Solin, A., López-Couso, M. J. and Los, B. (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English (Oxford Studies in the History of English 2). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–118.Google Scholar

Vittersø, G. 2004. ‘Fra sva til sav: Stabilitet og endring i norske leddsetninger 1200–1875’ [From sva to sav: Stability and change in Norwegian embedded clauses 1200–1875], unpublished cand.philol. thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Waldmann, C. 2008. ‘Input och output: Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser’ [Input and output: Word order in Swedish children’s main and embedded clauses]. Lundastudier A 65, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.Google Scholar

Warner, A. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press.Google Scholar

Warner, A. 1983. ‘Review of D. Lightfoot, Principles of diachronic syntax’, Journal of Linguistics 19:187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. 2007. ‘Parameters of variation between verb-subject and subject-verb order in late Middle English’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2008. ‘Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues’, Lingua 118(12): 1841–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009a. ‘Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1): 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009b. ‘The development of word order in Old and Middle English: The role of information structure and first language acquisition’, Diachronica 26(1): 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009c. The acquisition of word order: Micro-cues, information structure and economy (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2009d. ‘Many small catastrophes: Gradualism in a microparametric perspective’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M. 2013. ‘The acquisition of linguistic variation: Parameters vs. micro-cues’, in Lohndal, T. (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 275–98.Google Scholar

Westergaard, M. and Bentzen, K. 2007. ‘The (non-)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses’, in Gülzow, I. and Gagarina, N. (eds.), Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept [Studies on Language Acquisition]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 271–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westergaard, M., Vangsnes, Ø.A. and Lohndal, T. 2012. ‘Norwegian som: The complementizer that climbed to the matrix Left Periphery and caused Verb Second violations’, in Bianchi, V. and Chesi, C. (eds.), Enjoy linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Siena: CISCL Press, pp. 329–43.Google Scholar

Wexler, K. 1999. ‘Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage’, in Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Shillock, R. (eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing, special issue of Lingua 106: 23–79.Google Scholar

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

Yang, C. 2010. ‘Universal Grammar, statistics or both?’, in Yang, C. (ed.), Language acquisition (Critical concepts in linguistics), vol. II. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 128–40.Google Scholar

Adams, M. 1987. ‘From Old French to the theory of Pro-drop’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bopp, F. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt-am-Main.Google Scholar

Butt, M. and Lahiri, A. 2013. ‘Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs’, Lingua 135: 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1966. Topics in the theory of generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Condillac, E. B. 1746. Essai sur lórigine des connaissances humaines. Paris.Google Scholar

Crowley, T. 1992. An introduction to historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, O. 2001. ‘Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere’, in Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 471–80.Google Scholar

Evers, A. 1975. ‘The transformational cycle in Dutch and German’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar

Franzén, T. 1939. Etude sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Gabelentz, G. [1891] 1901. Die Sprachwissenshaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Weigel (reprint Tübingen: Narr 1972).Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology’, Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 7: 394–415.Google Scholar

Gabelentz, G. 1976. ‘Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 151–88.Google Scholar

Gabelentz, G. 2011. Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. 1954. ‘A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language’, in Spencer, R. (ed.), Method and perspective in anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pp. 192–220.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. 1978. ‘How does a language acquire gender markers?’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 3. Stanford University Press, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar

Haas, M. 1946. ‘A grammatical sketch of Tunica’, in Hoijer, H. (ed.), Linguistic structures of native America. New York: Viking, pp. 337–66.Google Scholar

Harris, M. 1978. The evolution of French syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar

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

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodge, C. 1970. ‘The linguistic cycle’, Linguistic Sciences: 13: 1–7.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, J. 2009. ‘Jespersen recycled’, in van Gelderen, (ed.), pp. 15–34.Google Scholar

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

Humboldt, W. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts.Google Scholar

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

Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst (reprinted 1966).Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1922. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Katz, A. 1996. ‘Cyclical grammaticalization and the cognitive link between pronoun and copula’, unpublished PhD thesis, Rice University.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. and Condoravdi, C. 2006. ‘Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle’, in Janse, M., Joseph, B. and Ralli, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of modern Greek dialects and linguistic theory. Mytilene: Doukas, pp. 172–97.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1972. Language in the inner city. University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larrivée, P. 2010. ‘The pragmatic motifs of the Jespersen Cycle: Default, activation, and the history of negation in French’, Lingua 120(9): 2240–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lehmann, C. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e stile 20(3): 303–18.Google Scholar

Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1977. ‘A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 414–44.Google Scholar

Loprieno, A. 1995. Ancient Egyptian. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loprieno, A. 2001. ‘From Ancient Egyptian to Coptic’, in Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Meillet, A. [1912] 1921. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, in Champion, E. (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, pp.130–48 (reprinted 1958).Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, N. 2012. ‘Mechanisms of language change in a functional system: The recent semantic evolution of English future time expressions’, Journal of Historical Linguistics 2(1): 83–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. (eds.) 2012. Oxford handbook on historical English linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2009. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy, and semantic bleaching’, in Trousdale, G. and Traugott, E. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.Google Scholar

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

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

Schlegel, A. W. 1818. Observations sur la langue et la litérature provençales. Paris.Google Scholar

Schwegler, A. 1990. Analyticity and syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stassen, L. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Talmy, L. 2001. Toward a cognitive semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Tauli, V. 1958. The structural tendencies of languages. Helsinki.Google Scholar

Tauli, V. 1966. Structural tendencies in Uralic languages. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Tooke, J. H. 1786–1805. The viversion of Purley. London.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. 1991. Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, J. 2009. ‘The Jespersen cycles’, in van Gelderen, (ed.), pp. 35–71.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

van Gelderen, E. 2008. ‘Where did late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy’, Studia Linguistica 62(3): 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. (ed.) 2009. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2013. ‘The linguistic cycle and the language faculty’, Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. (ed.) 2016. Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.) 2013. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wood, J. 2013. ‘Quantity nouns and grammaticalisation: Language change and couple and pair’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar

Zribi-Hertz, A. 1994. ‘La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs’, Travaux de Linguistique et Litterature 32: 131–47.Google Scholar