Ahn, Mee-Jin. 2000. Phonetic and functional bases of syllable weight for stress assignment. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In Dixon, and Aikhenvald, (eds.), pp. 42–78.Google Scholar

Altmann, Heidi and Kabak, Baris. 2011. Second language phonology. In Kula, et al. (eds.), pp. 298–319.Google Scholar

Anderson, John M. and Ewen, Colin J.. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1993. Is a rhythm-based typology possible? A study of the role of prosody in phonological typology. KontRI Working paper no. 21. Freiburg.Google Scholar

Bagemihl, Bruce. 1988. Alternate phonologies and morphologies. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J. and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, (ed.), pp. 9–54.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Hildebrandt, Kristine A. and Schiering, René. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 47–78.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, (ed.), pp. 206–44.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, et al. (eds.), pp. 471–524.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2007. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 297–306.Google Scholar

Broecke, M. P. R.. 1976. Hierarchies and rank orders in distinctive features. Assen and Amsterdam: van Gorcum.Google Scholar

Butskhrikidze, Marika. 2002. The consonant phonotactics of Georgian. HIL/LOT dissertation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphic.Google Scholar

Caro Reina, Javier and Szczepaniak, Renata (eds.). 2014. Syllable and word languages. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Casali, Roderic F. 2003. [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology 7: 307–82.Google Scholar

Casali, Roderic F. 2007. ATR harmony in African languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(3): 496–549.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2: 225–52.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. and Beckman, M. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, pp. 283–333. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. 2009. The role of features in speech sound inventories. In Raimy, Eric and Cairns, Charles (eds.), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory, pp. 19–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Coetsem, Frans. 1996. Towards a typology of lexical accent: Stress accent and pitch accent in a renewed perspective. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Crothers, J. 1978. Typology and universals of vowel systems. In Greenberg, et al. (eds.), pp. 93–152.Google Scholar

Dauer, R. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11: 51–62.Google Scholar

de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19: 1–32.Google Scholar

de Lacy, Paul. (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–72.Google Scholar

Dinnsen, Daniel and O’Connor, Kathleen M.. 2001. Typological predictions in developmental phonology. Journal of Child Language 28: 597–628.Google Scholar

Dinnsen, Daniel A. and Gierut, Judith A. (eds.). 2008. Optimality Theory: Phonological acquisition and disorders. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. II: Grammatical topics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.). 2002a. Word. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002b. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, and Aikhenvald, (eds.), pp. 1–41.Google Scholar

Donegan, P. J. and Stampe, D.. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of language structure. In Chicago Linguistic Society 19: Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax, pp. 337–53. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. 1997. Tone systems in New Guinea. Linguistic Typology 1: 347–86.Google Scholar

Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang. 1985. The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

Edmonson, J. A., Bateman, J. and Miehle, H.. 1992. Tone contours and tone clusters in Iau. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18: 92–103.Google Scholar

Flack, Kathryn. 2009. Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26: 269–302.Google Scholar

Fox, Anthony. 1985. Aspects of prosodic typology. Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics University of Leeds 3: 60–119.Google Scholar

Fox, Anthony. 1995. Principles of intonational typology. In Lewis, Jack Windsor (ed.), Studies in general and English phonetics: Essays in honour of Professor J. D. O’Connor, pp. 187–210. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fox, Anthony. 2000. Prosodic features and prosodic structure. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A. and Wright, Richard. 2002. The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics 30: 139–62.Google Scholar

Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). 1973. Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Fróta, Sonia and Prieto, Pilar. 2015. Intonation in Romance. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fudge, E. 1987. Branching structure within the syllable. Journal of Linguistics 23: 359–77.Google Scholar

Gil, D. 1986. A prosodic typology of language. Folia Linguistica 20: 165–231.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob. 2010. A typology of stress patterns. In van der Hulst, Harry, Goedemans, Rob and van Zanten, Ellen (eds.), A survey of word accentual systems in the language of the world, pp. 647–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005a. Fixed stress locations. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 62–5.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005b. Weight-sensitive stress. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 66–9.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005c. Weight factors in weight-sensitive stress systems. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 70–3.Google Scholar

Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005d. Rhythm types. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 74–7.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (ed.). 1995. The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J. and Yu, A.. (eds.). 2011. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew. 2001. A typology of contour tone restrictions. Studies in Language 25: 405–44.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew. 2007. Typology in optimality theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 750–69.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch accent: Toward a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, pp. 83–118. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew. 2016. Phonological typology: The cross-linguistic study of sound systems. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, Matthew and Applebaum, Ayla. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. and Kashube, D.. 1976. Word prosodic systems: A preliminary report. Working Papers on Language Universals 20: 1–18.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph, Ferguson, Charles and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.). 1978. Universals of human language, Vol. II: Phonology. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Barış (eds.). 2009a. Phonological domains: Universals and deviations. Belin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Barış 2009b. Prosodic phonology: An appraisal. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. Intonation: A whole autosegmental language. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.), Advances in nonlinear phonology, pp. 117–32. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, Tracy A. 1999. The phonological word: A review. In Hall, and Kleinhenz, (eds.), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Hall, Tracy A. and Kleinhenz, Ursula (eds.). 1999. Studies on the phonological word. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hauser, Ivy. 2012. Can consonants predict vowels? A typological study of the world’s languages. 2012 Surf Projects: Arts and Humanities. Available online at: www.unc.edu/depts/our/students/fellowship_supp/surf/2012/hauser12.pdf.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2015. Words as phonological units. In Taylor, John R. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word, pp. 221–45. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hirst, Daniel and Di Cristo, Alberto (eds.). 1998a. Intonation systems. In Hirst, and Di Cristo, (eds.), pp. 1–44.Google Scholar

Hirst, Daniel and Di Cristo, Alberto (eds.). 1998b. Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 1984. Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrect: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 1996. Separating primary accent and secondary accent. In Goedemans, Rob, van der Hulst, Harry and Visch, Ellis (eds.), Stress patterns of the world, pp. 1–26. (HIL Publications 2). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 2000. Issues in foot typology. In Davenport, Michael and Hannahs, S. J. (eds.), Issues in phonological structure, pp. 95–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Also appeared in Toronto Working Papers in linguistics 16 (1997): 77–102.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 2009. Two phonologies. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 315–52.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 2011. Pitch Accent Systems. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 1003–27.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 2014. Word stress: Past, present and future. In van der Hulst, H. G. (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, pp. 3–55. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. 2016. Phonological systems. In Allen, Keith (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics, pp. 83–103. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry. Forthcoming. Word accent: A representational account. Ms. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry and Ritter, Nancy (eds.). 1999. The syllable: Views and facts. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry, Goedemans, Rob and van Zanten, E. (eds.). 2010. A survey of word accentual systems in the languages of the world. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hyde, Brett. 2011. The Iambic-Trochaic Law. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 1052–77.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress, in Hyman, Larry (ed.), USC studies in stress and accent. Los Angeles: USC Linguistics Department, 37–82.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2001. Tone systems. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 1367–80. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23: 225–57.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2007a. Where’s phonology in typology? Linguistic Typology 11: 265–71.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2007b. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent Language Sciences 31: 213–38.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman, Fant, C. Gunnar M. and Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2014. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kang, Yoonjung. 2011. Loanword phonology. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), pp. 2258–82.Google Scholar

Kaun, Abigail. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: An Optimality Theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Published as UCLA Dissertations in Linguistics, No. 8.Google Scholar

Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. and Vergnaud, J.-R.. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–28.Google Scholar

Kaye, Jonathan and Lowenstamm, Jean. 1984. De la syllabicité. In Dell, François, Hirst, Daniel and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (eds.), La forme sonore du langage: Structure des représentations en phonologie, pp. 123–59. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar

Keyser, Samuel J. and Stevens, Kenneth N.. 2001. Enhancement revisited. In Kenstowicz, Michael J. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 271–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kisseberth, C. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.Google Scholar

Klein, T. B. 2011. The typology of creole phonology: Phoneme inventories and syllable templates. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Language 26 (1): 155–93. Also in Bhat, P. and Veenstra, T. (eds.), Creole languages and linguistic typology, pp. 207–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013.Google Scholar

Kubozono, H. 2011. Japanese pitch accent. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. V, pp. 2879–907.Google Scholar

Kula, Nancy, Botma, Bert and Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.). 2011. Continuum companion to phonology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Kümmel, Martin. 2015. The role of typology in historical phonology. In Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds.). The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, Part II. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. R. 2009. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Lahiri, Aditi and Plank, Frans. 2010. Phonological phrasing in Germanic: The judgment of history, confirmed through experiment. Transactions of the Philological Society 108(3): 370–98.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 1984. Vowel system universals and typology: Prologue to theory. Phonology Yearbook 1: 75–111.Google Scholar

Leitch, Myles. 1996. Vowel harmonies of the Congo Basin: An optimality theory analysis of variation in the Bantu zone C. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar

Liljencrants, J., and Lindblom, B.. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48(4): 839–62.Google Scholar

Lindblom, B. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J. and Jaeger, J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, pp. 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lindblom, B. and Maddieson, I. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Hyman, L., and Li, C. (eds.), Language, speech and mind, pp. 62–79. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 1978. Universals of tone. In Greenberg, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 335–65.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 1997. Phonetic universals. In Hardcastle, William J. and Laver, John (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, pp. 619–39. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005a. Consonant inventories. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 10–13.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005b. Vowel quality inventories. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 14–17.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005c. Consonant-vowel ratio. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 18–21.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005d. Front rounded vowels. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 50–3.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005e. Uvular consonants. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 30–3.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005f. Syllable structure. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 54–7.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2005g. Tone. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 58–61.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2007. Issues of phonological complexity: statistical analysis of the relationship between syllable structures, segment inventories, and tone contrasts. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter and Ohala, Manjari (eds.), Experimental Approaches to Phonology, pp. 93–103. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2011. Typology of phonological systems. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, pp. 534–48. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Martinet, André. 1964. Elements of general linguistics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Meir, Irit, Paddem, Carol, Aronoff, Mark and Sandler, Wendy. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of language. Cognitive linguistics 24(2): 309–43.Google Scholar

Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Milewski, Tadeusz. 1973. Introduction to the study of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. III: Word structure, pp. 297–334. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing language typology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Murray, Robert W. and Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59: 514–28.Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. (Studies in Generative Grammar). Dordrecht, and Riverton, NJ: Foris.Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina, Shukla, Mohinish and Mehler, Jacques. 2011. Stress-timed vs. syllable timed languages. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 1147–59.Google Scholar

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy selection. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), pp. 2357–82.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth and Rice, Keren. (eds.). 2011. The Blackwell companion to phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon. 1997. Prosodic words. The Hague: Holland Academics Graphics.Google Scholar

Perniss, Pamela, Thompson, Robin L. and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2007. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1 (00227). Published online 31 December 2010. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227.Google Scholar

Pike, Kenneth L. 1948. Tone languages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Plank, F. 1998. The co-variation of phonology with morphology and syntax: A hopeful history. Linguistic Typology 2: 195–230.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms. Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder. Published in 2004, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Pulgram, E. 1970. Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Riad, Tomas and Gussenhoven, Carlos (eds.). 2007. Typological studies in word and sentence prosody, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Rischel, Jorgen. 1978. Is there just one hierarchy of prosodic categories? In Dressler, W., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E. and Rennison, J. R. (eds.), Phonologica 1984, pp. 253–9. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roca, Iggy. 1986. Secondary stress and metrical rhythm. Phonology Yearbook 3: 341–70.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1925. Sound patterns in language. Language 1: 37–51.Google Scholar

Schmid, Stephan. 2012 Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics–phonolgy interface: A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo-Romance dialects. In Ender, Andrea, Leemann, Adrian and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Methods in contemporary linguistics, pp. 45–68. Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Boë, Louis-Jean, Vallée, Nathalie and Abry, Christian. 1997. The dispersion-focalization theory of vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 25: 255–86.Google Scholar

Sedlak, Philip. 1969. Typological considerations of vowel quality systems. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 1: 1–40.Google Scholar

Seidl, Amanda. 2001. Minimal indirect reference: A theory of the syntax–phonology interface. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Song, J. J. (ed.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, (ed.), pp. 114–74.Google Scholar

Stevens, Kenneth N. 1989. On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 17: 3–45.Google Scholar

Suárez, Jorge A. 1983. The Mesoamerican Indian languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tokizaki, Hisao. 2008. Symmetry and asymmetry in the syntax–phonology interface. Phonological Studies 11: 123–30.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939/1969. Principles of phonology. Trans. Baltaxe, Christiane A. M.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Originally published in 1939 as Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: van der Hoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Vaux, Bert and Samuels, Bridget. 2015. Explaining vowel systems: Dispersion theory vs. natural selection. The Linguistic Review 32(3): 573–99.Google Scholar

Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Available online at: http://wals.info.Google Scholar

Vigário, Marina. 2003. The prosodic word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Vogel, I. 2008. Universals of prosodic structure. In Scalise, S., Magni, E., Vineis, E. and Bisetto, A. (eds.), Universals of language today, pp. 59–82. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar

Vogel, Irene. 2009. The status of the clitic group. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 15–46.Google Scholar

Weidert, A. 1981. Tonologie. Ergebnisse, Analysen, Vermutungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Yip, Moira. 2002. Tone. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic dtructure. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Published in 1994, New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Zec, Draga. 2007. The syllable. In de Lacy, (ed.), pp. 161–94.Google Scholar

Zhang, Jie. 2002. The effects of duration and sonority on contour tone distribution: Typlogical survey and formal analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Andersen, Torben. 1994. Morphological stratification in Dinka: On the alternations of voice quality, vowel length and tone in the morphology of transitive verbal roots in a monosyllabic language. Studies in African Linguistics 23(1): 1–63.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar and Nichols, Johanna. 2005. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bopp, Franz. 1833–52. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Altslawischen, Gotischen und Deutschen (Published in six parts). Berlin: Royal Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. [1976] 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. I: Methodology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra (eds.), Word: A crosslinguistic typology, pp. 1–41. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. 1954. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. In Spencer, R. F. (ed.), Method and perspective in anthropology: Papers in honor of Wilson D. Wallis, pp. 192–220. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. 1960. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language (reprint of Greenberg 1954). International Journal of American Linguistics 26: 178–94.Google Scholar

Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: F. Dümmler Verlag.Google Scholar

Losonsky, Michael (ed.). 1999. On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species, trans. Heath, Peter (Translation of Humboldt, 1836). (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. [1921] 1939. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar

Schlegel, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich. 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Heidelberg: Mohr Siebeck Verlag.Google Scholar

Zenteno, Carlos. 1753. Arte novissima de lengua mexicana. Mexico: La viuda de D. Joseph Bernardo de Hogal.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Grammars in contact, pp. 1–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2001. Introduction. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, pp. 1–26. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, Peter. 1993. Word order in a free word order language: The case of Jiwarli. Unpublished ms., Latrobe University.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2001. Configurationality and polysynthesis. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, Vol. II, pp. 1433–41. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bauer, Anna. 2011. Verberststellung im Hethitischen. In Krisch, Thomas and Lindner, Thomas (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der 13. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, pp. 39–48. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar

Blust, Robert. 2006. The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: A historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 45: 311.Google Scholar

Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt (M.): Andreäsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N. 1898/1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Available online at: www.bosworthtoller.com.Google Scholar

Brugmann, Karl. 1891. Zur Frage der Entstehung des grammatischen Geschlechtes. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 15: 523–31.Google Scholar

Budassi, Marco. 2014. La semantica della preposizione per nell’italiano antico. Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Pavia.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining language universals, pp. 350–79. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Typology and reconstruction. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, pp. 74–97. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2001. What language features can be ‘borrowed’? In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, pp. 412–36. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Devine, Andrew M. and Stephens, Laurence D.. 2000. Discontinuous syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.Google Scholar

Ehret, Christofer. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Series 1). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Ivanov, Vjaceslav V.. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture, 2 vols. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Originally published in 1984 as Indoevropeiskij jazyk i indoevropeitsi. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar

Gensler, Orin. 2014. A typological look at Egyptian *d > ʕ. In Grossman, Eitan, Haspelmath, Martin and Richter, Tonio Sebastian (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic in typological perspective, pp. 187–202. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Gildea, Spike. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gildea, Spike. (ed.). 2000. Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Godefroy, Frederic. 1982. Lexique de l’Ancien Français. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. [1963] 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of grammar, pp. 73–113. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom. 2013. Typology. In Vossen, Rainer (ed.), The Khoesan languages, pp. 25–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 54–76. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, pp. 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin and Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew. 2012. Syntactic conditions on null arguments in the Indo-European Bible translations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44: 129–41.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hock, Hans H. 2010. Typology and universals. In Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, pp. 59–69. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. 1973. Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glotta 7: 141–66.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. 2008. Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 253–84. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Buschmann.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1958. Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, pp. 17–35. Oslo University Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. Review of W. P. Lehmann 1974. Language 52: 982–8.Google Scholar

Sir Jones, William. 1786. Published in Works, Vol. I, pp. 19–34, London, 1799. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/worksofsirwillia01jone. Reprinted in Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.), A reader in nineteenth century historical Indo-European linguistics, pp. 7–20. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967.Google Scholar

Keydana, Goets and Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2): 116–28.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 23–53. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Klimov, Georgij A. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 131: 11–25.Google Scholar

Klimov, Georgij A. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo strija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania and Heine, Bernd. 2008. On the explanatory value of grammaticalization. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 215–30. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 2000. Remarks on (uni)directionality. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, pp. 215–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Luraghi, Silvia. 1994. Suffix copying and related phenomena: A prototype approach. Linguistics 32: 1095–108.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 1995. The function of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. In Noonan, M. and Downing, P. (eds.), Word order in discourse, pp. 355–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Omission of the direct object in Classical Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 239–57.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. On the directionality of grammaticalization. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51(4): 355–65.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2005. Does a theory of language change need unidirectionality? Logos and Language 6(2): 9–17.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2008. Possessive constructions in Anatolian, Hurrian, Urartean, and Armenian as evidence for language contact. In Collins, B. J., Bachvarova, M. R. and Rutherford, I. C. (eds.), Anatolian interfaces, pp. 147–55. Oxford: Oxbow Press.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, pp. 212–29. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45(2): 435–64.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Basic valency orientation in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1): 1–32.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming a. From non-canonical to canonical agreement. To appear in a forthcoming Festschrift.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming b. The mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction. Submitted.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1995. Diachronically stable structural features. In Andersen, Henning (ed.), Historical linguistics 1993: Papers from the Eleventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics, pp. 337–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph, Brian and Janda, Richard (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, pp. 215–30. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2010. Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies. In Stathi, Ekaterini, Gehweiler, Elke and König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, pp. 123–50. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pensalfini, Robert. 2004. Towards a typology of nonconfigurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 359–408.Google Scholar

Pisani, Vittore. 1971. Glottologia indoeuropea. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar

Rice, Sally and Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11: 451–514.Google Scholar

Robbins, Janelle. 1998. The historical development of the English prepositions to and for. Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar

Ross, Malcom. 2001. Contact-induced change in Oceanic Languages in north-west Melanesia. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, pp. 134–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shields, Kenneth. 2011. Linguistic typology and historical linguistics. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, pp. 551–67. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stefanini, Ruggero. 1969. Il genitivo aggettivale nelle lingue anatoliche. Athenaeum N. S. 47: 290–302.Google Scholar

Stewart, John M. 1989. Kwa. In Bendor-Samuel, John (ed.), The Niger-Congo languages. Lanham, MD and London: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. 2003. Contact as a source of language change. In Joseph, Brian and Janda, Richard (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, pp. 687–712. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Vogt, Hans. 1932. Les groupes nominaux en arménien et géorgien anciens. Norsk Tidsskrift for Spragvidenskap 5: 57–81.Google Scholar

Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.Google Scholar

Wartburg, Walther. 1958. Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Basel: Zbinden.Google Scholar

Watkins, Calvert. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, pp. 44–63. Oxford University Press, 44–63.Google Scholar

Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Wichmann, Søren and Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2008. Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In Stolz, Thomas, Bakker, Dik and Palomo, Rosa Salas (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on romancisation processes, pp. 89–121. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Wilhelm, Gernot. 1995. Suffixaufnahme in Hurrian and Urartean. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Double case, pp. 113–35. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2003. A grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2007. Typological distinctions in word-formation. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn, pp. 1–65. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning. 1988. Center and periphery: adoption, diffusion, and spread. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical dialectology: Regional and social, pp. 39–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic fieldwork, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, pp. 150–201. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Anthony, David. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 1997. On the linguistic prehistory of Finno-Ugric. In Hickey, R. and Puppel, S. (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, pp. 829–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2010. The evolution of morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Charney, Jean Ormsbee. 1993. A grammar of Comanche. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical morphology, pp. 83–96. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1992. Before complexity. In Hawkins, J. and Gell-Mann, M. (eds.), The evolution of human languages, pp. 193–211. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1991. Chronological strata of suffix classes in the Klamath verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 57: 426–45.Google Scholar

De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2004. Person marking in Dutch dialects. In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 181–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2005. Persoonsmarkering in de dialecten in het nederlandse taalgebied. Ghent University Press.Google Scholar

De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2009. Changing pronominal gender in Dutch; transmission or diffusion? In Tsipaklou, S., Karyolemou, M. and Pavlou, P. (eds.), Language variation: European perspectives II, pp. 71–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

De Vogelaer, Gunther and van der Auwera, Johan. 2010. When typological rara generate rarissima: Analogical extension of verbal agreement in Dutch dialects. In Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds.), Rara and rarissima: Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversity, pp. 47–72. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Donaldson, Bruce. 1994. Afrikaans. In König, E. and Van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Germanic languages, pp. 478–504. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Drinka, Bridget. 2003. The development of the perfect in Indo-European: stratigraphic evidence of prehistoric areal influence. In Andersen, H. (ed.), Language contacts in prehistory: Studies in stratigraphy, pp. 77–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dubé, Jaïmé. 2013. Reconsidering the ‘isolating protolanguage hypothesis’ in the evolution of morphology. In Cathcart, C., Chen, I.-H., Finley, G., Kang, S., Sandy, C. and Stickles, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 76–90. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas and Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2002. Introduction: Problems of polysynthesis. In Evans, N. and Sasse, H.-J. (eds.), Problems of polysynthesis, pp. 1–13. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2002. Syntactic development from Old Nordic to Early Modern Nordic. In Bandle, O. et al. (eds.), The Nordic languages: An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages, Vol. II, pp. 1149–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Fairbanks, Gordon. 1977. Case inflections in Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5: 1–31.Google Scholar

Fortescue, Michael. 1992. Morphophonemic complexity and typological stability in a polysynthetic language family. International Journal of American Linguistics 58: 242–8.Google Scholar

Fortescue, Michael. 2002. The rise and fall of polysynthesis in the Eskimo-Aleut family. In Evans, N. and Sasse, H.-J. (eds.), Problems of polysynthesis, pp. 282–97. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Fortson, Benjamin. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar

Geerts, Guido. 1966. Genus en geslacht in de Gouden Eeuw. Brussels: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy and Young, Philip. 2002. Cooperation and interpersonal manipulation in the society of intimates. In Chibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, pp. 23–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grace, George. 1990. The ‘aberrant’ (vs. ‘exemplary’) Melanesian languages. In Baldi, P. (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, pp. 155–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hassan, Fekri. 1981. Demographic archaeology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Hodge, Carleton T. 1970. The linguistic cycle. Language Sciences 13: 1–7.Google Scholar

Hoijer, Harry. 1945. Classificatory verb stems in the Apachean languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 11: 13–23.Google Scholar

Hymes, Dell. 1974. Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. In Bloomfield, M. and Haugen, E. (eds.), Language as a human problem, pp. 45–71. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1929. Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du Russe comparée à celle des autres langues Slaves. Prague: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 2.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in language. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Keenan, Ed. 1976. Discussion. In Harnard, S. R., Steklis, H. D. and Lancaster, J. (eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech, pp. 92–6. New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Korotkova, Natalia and Lander, Yury. 2010. Deriving affix ordering in polysynthesis: evidence from Adyghe. Morphology 20: 299–319.Google Scholar

Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflection. Leiden University Press.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lupyan, Gary and Dale, Rick. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5(1): e8559. Published online. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008559.Google Scholar

McDonough, Joyce and Sussman, Rachel. 2006. A methodology for the investigation of speaker’s knowledge of structure in Athabaskan. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 30: 102–13.Google Scholar

Madvig, Johan Nicolai. 1857. De grammatische Betegnelser. Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Mailhammer, Robert. 2011. The prehistory of European languages. In Kortmann, B. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe: A comprehensive guide, pp. 671–82. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mallory, J. P. 2013. The origins of the Irish. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar

Melchert, Craig. Forthcoming. The position of Anatolian. In Weiss, M. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European studies. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Melchert, Craig and Oettinger, Norbert. 2009. Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und Indogermanischen: ein Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie. Incontri Linguistici 32: 53–73.Google Scholar

Milroy, Lesley. 1980. Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1977. Pidginisation and simplification of language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic diversity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nettle, Daniel and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Review of Ö. Dahl: The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Diachronica 24(1): 171–8.Google Scholar

Perkins, Revere. 1980. The covariation of culture and grammar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan PhD thesis.Google Scholar

Perkins, Revere. 1995. Deixis, grammar, and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Poulson, Laurie. 2011. Meta-modeling of tense and aspect in a cross-linguistic grammar engineering platform. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 28.Google Scholar

de Reuse, Willem. 2006. A practical grammar of the San Carlos Apache language. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 1999. Review of Leonard Faltz (1998): The Navajo verb: a grammar for students and scholars. Linguistic Typology 3: 393–400.Google Scholar

Roberge, Paul. 1995. The formation of Afrikaans. In Mesthrie, R. (ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics, pp. 68–88. Cape Town: Philip.Google Scholar

Ross, Malcolm. 1997. Social networks and kinds of speech community events. In Blench, R. and Spriggs, M. (eds.), Archaeology and language, pp. 209–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ryckeboer, Hugo. 2002. Dutch/Flemish in the north of France. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23: 22–35.Google Scholar

Sadock, Jerrold. 2003. A grammar of Kalaallisut. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1912. Language and environment. American Anthropologist 14: 226–42.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar

Schlegel, August Wilhelm. 1846. Œuvres de M. Auguste-Guillaume de Schlegel. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Shields, Kenneth. 2010. Linguistic typology and the reconstruction of the Indo-European accusative plural. Emerita: Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica 78: 33–42.Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, Kaius 2009. Complexity in core argument marking and population size. In Sampson, G., Gil, D. and Trudgill, P. (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, pp. 125–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Smitherman, Thomas and Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. Typological changes in the evolution of IndoEuropean syntax? Diachronica 26(2): 253–73.Google Scholar

Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Taeldeman, Johan. 2005. Oost-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar

Thurston, William. 1989. How exoteric languages build a lexicon: Esoterogeny in West New Britain. In Harlow, R. and Hooper, R. (eds.), VICAL I: Papers in Oceanic linguistics, pp. 555–79. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Trudgill, Peter 2013. Gender maintenance and loss in Totenmålet, English, and other major Germanic varieties. In Lohndal, T. (ed.), In search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, pp. 77–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter 2016. Sociolinguistic typology and the uniformitarian hypothesis. In Crevels, M., Hombert, J.-M. and Muysken, P. (eds.), Language dispersal, diversification, and contact: A global perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Vogt, Hans. 1948. Dans quelles conditions et dans quelles limites peut s’exercer sur le système morphologique d’une langue l’action du système morphologique d’une autre langue? In Lejeune, M. (ed.), Actes du Sixième Congrès International des Linguistes, pp. 31–45. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Weiss, Helmut. Forthcoming. The Wackernagel position and complementizer agreement: The emergence of a syntactic particularity at the left edge of the middle field. In Hinterhölzl, R., Bentzen, K., Speyer, A. and Szucsuch, L. (eds.), The German Middle Field in a comparative and diachronic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. Carroll, John B.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wier, Thomas. 2006. Review of J. Sadock: A Grammar of Kalaallisut. Language 82: 221–2.Google Scholar

Wray, Alison and Grace, George. 2007. The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117: 543–78.Google Scholar

Ansaldo, Umberto and Lim, Lisa. 2004. Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence. Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the Cline: The nature of grammaticalization, pp. 345–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, pp. 109–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2008. Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. In Jóse López-Couso, Maria and Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, pp. 15–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2010. Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account, in Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, pp. 245–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2011. Grammaticalization and typology, in Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, pp. 105–17. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, John (ed.), Explaining language universals, pp. 350–79. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2006. Language change and universals. In Mairal, Ricardo and Gil, Juana (eds.), Linguistic universals, pp. 179–94. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2009. Language universals and usage-based theory. In Christiansen, Morten H., Collins, Christopher and Edelman, Shimon (eds.), Language universals, pp. 17–39. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 378–88. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William and Perkins, Revere D.. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In Croft, William A., Kemmer, Suzanne and Denning, Keith (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday, pp. 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 2000. Florescence as a force in grammaticalization. In Gildea, Spike (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, pp. 39–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects. In Fisiak, Jaced (ed.), Historical morphology, pp. 83–96. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Typology and reconstruction. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, pp. 74–97. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2006. The asymmetry of affixation. In Gärtner, Hans-Martin, Beck, Sigrid, Eckardt, Regine, Musan, Renate and Stiebels, Barbara (eds.), Puzzles for Krifka, pp. 10–14. Available online at: www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/publications/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2001. Lexical categories. Lecture 2 of his Santa Barbara Lectures on Functional Syntax. The LSA Summer Institute, UC Santa Barbara. Available at: www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/sb/functional_syntax.doc.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 2005. Prefixing versus suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), The world atlas of linguistic structures, pp. 110–13. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistics Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2008. On the relational properties of passive clauses. In Fernández, Zarina Estrada, Wichmann, Søren, Chamoreau, Claudine and Álvarez González, Albert (eds.), Studies in voice and transitivity, pp. 19–32. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. H. 1961. Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. H. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Bynon, Theodora (eds.), Approaches to language typology, pp. 145–66. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hale, Ken. 2001. Navajo verb stem position and the bipartite structure of the Navajo conjunct sector. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 678–93.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 185–214. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John. 2011. Processing efficiency and complexity in typological patterns. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, pp. 206–26. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, pp. 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2004. On genetic motivation in grammar. In Radden, Günter and Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, pp. 103–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2005. Gram, construction, and word class formation. In Knobloch, Clemens and Schaeder, Burhard (eds.), Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung. Perspektiven in System und Erwerb, pp. 79–92. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, and Heine, (eds.), Vol. I, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kuryɬowicz, Jerzy. [1965] 1975. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques 2: 38–54. (Diogenes 1965: 55–71.)Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1986. Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. General Linguistics 26(1): 3–22.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 2nd revised edn. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. pp.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Causes of language change. In Luraghi, Silvia and Bubenik, Vit (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics, pp. 358–70. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2010. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Why prefixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50(1–2): 155–85.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2011. Grammaticalization and explanation. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, pp. 177–92. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko. 2010. Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14: 71–126.Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko and Ohori, Toshio. 2011. Grammaticalization in Japanese. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, pp. 775–85. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Paul, Hermann. 1880. Principien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Paul, Hermann. 1891. Principles of the history of language. Trans. of 2nd edn of the original by Strong, H. A.. London: Longmans.Google Scholar

Rhee, Seongha. 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, pp. 764–74. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 1999. A formal approach to ‘grammaticalization’. Linguistics 37(6): 1011–41.Google Scholar

Schiering, René. 2007. The phonological basis of linguistic rhythm: Cross-linguistic data and diachronic interpretation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(4): 337–59.Google Scholar

Schiering, René. 2010. Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization: Evidence from cliticization. In Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke and König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, pp. 73–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Shields, Kenneth. 2011. Linguistic typology and historical linguistics. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, pp. 551–67. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thornes, Tim. 2013. Causation as ‘functional sink’ in Northern Paiute. In Thornes, Timothy J., Andvik, Erik E., Hyslop, Gwendolyn and Jansen, Joana (eds.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honor of Scott DeLancey, pp. 237–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Trask, Robert L. and Stockwell, Peter. 2007. Language and linguistics: Key concepts, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Luraghi, Silvia and Bubenik, Vit (eds.), Continuum companion of historical linguistics, pp. 271–85. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Whaley, Lindsay. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Young, Robert. 2000. The Navajo verb system: An overview. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.Google Scholar

Young, Robert and Morgan, William. 1987. The Navajo language: A grammar and colloquial dictionary, 2nd edn. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology, pp. 1–64. (Explorations in Linguistic Typology). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W.. 2011. Dependencies between grammatical systems. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Language at large: Essays on syntax and semantics, pp. 170–204. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Ameka, Felix K. 2012. Possessive constructions in Likpe (Sɛkpɛlé). In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology, pp. 224–42. (Explorations in Linguistic Typology). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Antzakas, Klimas 2006. The use of negative head movements in Greek Sign Language. In Zeshan, (ed.), pp. 258–69.Google Scholar

Bhat, D. N. S. 2000. The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology 4(3): 365–400.Google Scholar

Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, Carlo, Geraci, Carlo and Zucchi, Sandro. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case of right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2): 278–320.Google Scholar

Chen Pichler, Deborah, Schalber, Katharina, Wilbur, Ronnie and Hochgesang, Julie. 2006. Possessives and existentials in three sign languages. Presentation at the Ninth Congress on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR), Florianópolis, Brazil.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 2013. Numeral bases. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.), http://wals.info/chapter/131.Google Scholar

de Vos, Connie. 2012. Sign-spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a village sign language inscribes its signing space. PhD thesis, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar

de Weerdt, Danny and Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2008. Observations on possessive and existential constructions in Flemish Sign Language. In Zeshan, and Perniss, (eds.), pp. 195–212.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. III: Further grammatical topics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.). 2002. Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info [Accessed on 8 March 2015].Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.). 2006. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Fischer, Susan D. 2006. Questions and negation in American Sign Language. In Zeshan, (ed.), pp. 165–97.Google Scholar

Gil, David. 2013. Distributive numerals. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.), http://wals.info/chapter/54.Google Scholar

Hammarström, Harald. 2010. Rarities in numeral systems. In Wohlgemuth, Jan and Cysouw, Michael (eds.), Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory, pp. 11–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hanke, Thomas. 2010. Additional rarities in the typology of numerals. In Wohlgemuth, Jan and Cysouw, Michael (eds.), Empirical approaches to language typology: Rethinking universals – How rarities affect linguistic theory, pp. 61–89. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.). 2001. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive forces, sources, and grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnston, Trevor, Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Schembri, Adam and Leeson, Loraine. 2007. Real data are messy: Considering the cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Australian Sign Language, Vlaamse Gebarentaal and Irish Sign Language. In Perniss, et al. (eds.), pp. 163–206.Google Scholar

Klima, Edward S. and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lane, Harlan. 1992. The mask of benevolence. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar

Leeson, Lorraine and Saeed, John I.. 2012. Word order. In Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus and Woll, Bencie (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, pp. 245–64. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F. and Fennig, Charles D. (eds.). 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 18th edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Available online at: www.ethnologue.com. style.Google Scholar

Lutalo-Kiingi, Sam. 2014. A descriptive grammar of morphosyntactic constructions in Ugandan Sign Language (UgSL). PhD thesis, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.Google Scholar

Marsaja, I. Gede. 2008. Desa Kolok: A deaf village and its sign language in Bali, Indonesia. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar

McBurney, Susan Lloyd. 2002. Pronominal reference in signed and spoken languages. Are grammatical categories modality-dependent? In Meier, et al. (eds.), pp. 329–69.Google Scholar

McKee, Rachel. 2006. Aspects of interrogatives and negation in New Zealand Sign Language. In Zeshan, (ed.), pp. 70–90.Google Scholar

McNeill, David (ed.). 2000. Language and gesture. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Meier, Richard, Cormier, Kearsey and Quinto-Pozos, David (eds.). 2002. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Meir, Irit. 1998. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo and Sutton-Spence, Rachel. 2014. Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1–18.Google Scholar

Neidle, Carol, Lee, Robert, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Ben and Kegl, Judy. 1998. The rightward analysis of WH-movement in ASL: A reply to Petronio and Lillo-Martin. Language 74(4): 819–31.Google Scholar

Nyst, Victoria. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Nyst, Victoria. 2008. Pointing out possession and existence in Adamorobe Sign Language. In Zeshan, and Perniss, (eds.), pp. 235–52.Google Scholar

Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Padden, Carol and Humphries, Tom. 2006. Inside deaf culture. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Palfreyman, Nick. 2014. Sign language varieties of Indonesia: A linguistic and sociolinguistic investigation. PhD thesis, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.Google Scholar

Perniss, Pamela, Roland Pfau, and Steinbach, Markus. 2007. Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Perniss, Pamela and Zeshan, Ulrike. 2008. Possessive and existential constructions in Kata Kolok (Bali). In Zeshan, and Perniss, (eds.), pp. 125–49.Google Scholar

Petronio, Karen and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1997. WH-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73(1): 18–57.Google Scholar

Pfau, Roland. 2015. The grammaticalization of headshakes: From head movement to negative head. In Smith, Andrew, Trousdale, Graeme and Waltereit, Richard (eds.). New directions in grammaticalization research, pp. 9–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pfau, Roland and Steinbach, Markus. 2006a. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Linguistics in Potsdam 24: 5–98.Google Scholar

Pfau, Roland and Steinbach, Markus. 2006b. Pluralization in sign and speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10: 135–82.Google Scholar

Pfau, Roland and Steinbach, Markus. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, pp. 683–95. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Quer, Josep and GRIN (Gramaticà i Interpretació de Llengua de Signes). 2008. Structures of possession and existence in Catalan Sign Language. In Zeshan, and Perniss, (eds.), pp. 33–53.Google Scholar

Rosenstock, Rachel. 2008. The role of iconicity in International Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 8(2): 131–59.Google Scholar

Sagara, Keiko. 2014. The numeral system of Japanese Sign Language from a cross-linguistic perspective. MPhil dissertation, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UKGoogle Scholar

Sagara, Keiko and Zeshan, Ulrike. 2013. Typology of cardinal numerals and numeral incorporation in sign languages. Poster presented at the Eleventh Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) Conference. University College London, July.Google Scholar

Sandler, Wendy. 1999. The medium and the message: Prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in sign language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(2): 187–216.Google Scholar

Sandler, Wendy and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar