Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. and Lieven, E. 2014. ‘Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn’t help’, Language (Perspectives) 90: 53–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of function changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 351–74.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. and Chomsky, N. 2011. ‘The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development’, in Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford University Press, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B. and Chomsky, N. 2011. ‘Poverty of the stimulus revisited’, Cognitive Science 35: 1207–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berwick, R. C. and Weinberg, A. 1984. The grammatical basis of linguistics performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. 2014. ‘Complexity in comparative syntax: The view from modern parametric theory’, in Newmeyer, F. and Preston, L. (eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity. Oxford University Press, pp. 103–27.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Richards, M. 2006. ‘True optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind’, in Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist theorizing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–67.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2011. ‘Approaching parameters from below’, in Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford University Press, pp. 205–21.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, J. 2000. ‘Optimal syntax’, in Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford University Press, pp. 334–85.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-Functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. and Aissen, J. 2002. ’Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20(1): 81–95.Google Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N. 2011. ‘On the grounding of syntax and the role of phonology in human cognition’, Lingua 121: 2089–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G. 2006. ‘Virtual conceptual necessity, feature dissociation and the Saussurean legacy in generative grammar’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 575–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chien, Y.-E. and Wexler, K. 1990. ‘Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics’, Language Acquisition 1: 225–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1973. ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–86.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar

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

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

Chomsky, N. 1993. ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in Hale, K. and Keyser, J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework’, in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.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. 2004. ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’, in Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3. Oxford University Press, pp. 104–13.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 2008. ‘On phases’, in Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 133–66.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2013. ‘Problems of projection’, Lingua 130: 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A crosslinguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. 1995. ‘Autonomy and functionalist linguistics’, Language 71: 490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. 1999. The diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species, 2nd rev. edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, Ö. and Velupillai, V. 2011. ‘The past tense’, in Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.), ch. 66.Google Scholar

Daniel, M. 2011. ‘Plurality in independent pronouns’, in Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.), ch. 35.Google Scholar

de Villiers, J., Roeper, Th. and Vainikka, A. 1990. ‘The acquisition of long-distance rules’, in Frazier, L. and de Villiers, J. (eds.), Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 257–97.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. ‘Adjective classes in typological perspective’, in Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. (eds.), Adjective classes: Across-linguistic typological study. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, M. S. 1988. ‘Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: Dispelling a myth’, Lingua 74: 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, M. S. 1992. ‘The Greenbergian word order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) 2011. The World atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (available online at http://wals.info).Google Scholar

Endicott, P., Ho, S. Y. W. and Stringer, C. 2010. ‘Using genetic evidence to evaluate four paleoanthropological hypotheses for the timing of Neanderthal and modern human origins’, Journal of Human Evolution 59: 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Everett, D. 2005. ‘Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã’, Current Anthropology 46: 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Everett, D. 2007. ‘Cultural constraints on grammar in Pirahã: A reply to Nevins, Pesetsky, and Rodrigues (2007)’. Online: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000427.Google Scholar

Feeney, A. 2014. ‘Language evolution: Constraints on conceptions of a minimalist language faculty’, unpublished PhD thesis, Newcastle University.Google Scholar

Fitch, T., Hauser, M. and Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘The evolution of the language faculty: Clarificatioons and implications’, Cognition 97: 179–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J. D. 1978. ‘Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 427–73.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. 1983. ‘Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 163–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. D. 2009. ‘Syntax acquisition: An evaluation measure after all?’, in Palmarini, M. Piatelli, Uriagereka, J. and Salaburu, P. (eds.), Of minds and language: The Basque Country encounter with Noam Chomsky. Oxford University Press, pp. 256–77.Google Scholar

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

Greenberg, J. 1963. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 58–90. (Reprinted in Roberts, I. (ed.), 2007. Comparative grammar: Critical concepts, vol. 1. London: Routledge, pp. 41–74.)Google Scholar

Greenberg, J., Ferguson, Ch. A. and Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.) 1978. Universals of human language. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. 1986. ‘Subjacency and the S/S’ parameter’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 364–9.Google Scholar

Guasti, M. T. 2004. Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. and Comrie, B. (eds.) 2014. The world atlas of language structures. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library (available online at http://wals.info/).Google Scholar

Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, T. 2002. ‘The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’, Science 198: 1569–79.Google Scholar

Hauser, M., Yang, C., Berwick, R., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N. and Lewontin, R. 2014. ‘The mystery of language evolution’, Frontiers in Psychology 5: 401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hawkins, J. A. 1979. ‘Implicational universals as predictors of language change’, Language 55: 618–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, J. A. 1999. ‘Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars’, Language 75: 244–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. 1993. ‘Verb movement and the status of subjects: Implications for the theory of licensing’, Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistichen Linguistik 36: 75–102.Google Scholar

Hinzen, W. and Sheehan, M. 2013. The philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofmeister, P. and Sag, I. 2010. ’Cognitive constraints and island effects’, Language 86: 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hofmeister, L., Casasanto, S. and Sag, I. 2013. ‘How do individual cognitive differences relate to acceptability judgements? A reply to Sprouse, Wagers, and Phillips’, Language 88: 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2010a. ‘Null subject parameters’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press, pp. 88–124.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2010b. ‘Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian’, Theoretical Linguistics 36: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. Forthcoming a. ‘Linguistic typology’, to appear in Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. Forthcoming b. ‘The Final-over-Final Constraint in a mixed word order language’, in Sheehan, M., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Final-over-Final Constraint. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘Parameters and three factors of language design’, in Picallo, C. (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework. Oxford University Press, pp. 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, N. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Horvath, J. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Huang, J. 1982. ‘Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Hyams, N. and Wexler, K. 1993. ‘On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 421–59.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirby, S. and Hurford, J. (2002). ‘The emergence of linguistic structure: An overview of the iterated learning model’, in Cangelosi, A. and Parisi, D. (eds.), Simulating the evolution of language. London: Springer, pp. 121–48.Google Scholar

Kirby, S. and Christiansen, M. H. 2003. ‘From language learning to language evolution’, in Christiansen, M. and Kirby, S. (eds.), Language evolution. Oxford University Press, pp. 272–94.Google Scholar

É. Kiss, K. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kluender, R. 1998. ‘On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective’, in Culicover, P. and McNally, L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 29: The limits of syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 241–79.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. 2004. ‘Are subject islands subject to a processing account?’, West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 23: 101–25.Google Scholar

Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. 1993. ‘Subjacency as a processing phenomenon’, Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. ‘Verb-Object order in Early Middle English’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 132–63.Google Scholar

Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J. and Vikner, S. (eds.) 2001. Optimality-Theoretic syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lehmann, W. (ed.) 1978. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

McCarthy, J. 2001. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCloskey, J. 1996. ‘The scope of verb-movement in Irish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. and Rodrigues, C. 2009a. ‘Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment’, Language 85: 355–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D. and Rodrigues, C. 2009b. ‘Evidence and argumentation: A reply to Everett (2009)’, Language 85: 671–81.Google Scholar

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

Pérez-Leroux, A. T. 1993. Empty categories and the acquisition of wh-movement. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

Pérez-Leroux, A. and Kahnemuyipour, A. 2014. ‘News, somewhat exaggerated: Commentary on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven’, Language (Perspectives) 90: 115–25.Google Scholar

Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2.Google Scholar

Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P. 2008. ‘Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal smantics’, in Biberauer, M. T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, pp. 219–45.Google Scholar

Ritter, E. and Wiltschko, M. 2009. ‘Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION and PERSON’, in van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.), Alternatives to cartography. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 153–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1978. ‘Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition’, in Dubisson, C., Lightfoot, D. and Morin, Y.-C. (eds.), Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 155–90. (Reprinted in Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 49–76.)Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1997. ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Introduction’, in Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, C. and Sândalo, F. Forthcoming. ‘Word order as evidence for recursion in Pirahã’, to appear in Amaral, L., Maia, M., Nevins, A. and Roeper, T. (eds.), Recursion in Brazilian Languages and Beyond. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Roeper, T. and de Villiers, J. 1994. ‘Lexical links in the wh-chain’, in Lust, B., Hermon, G. and Kornfilt, J. (eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, vol. II: Binding, dependencies, and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 357–90.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. 1967. ‘Constraints on variables in syntax’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Schütze, C., Sprouse, J. and Caponigro, I. 2015. ‘Challenges for a theory of islands: A broader perspective on Ambridge, Pine, and Lieven’, Language 91(2): 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sheehan, M. 2013. ‘Some Implications of a Copy Theory of Labeling’, Syntax 16: 362–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. ‘Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 235–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2011a. ‘On UG and materialization’, Linguistic Analysis 37: 367–88.Google Scholar

Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2011b. ‘Uniformity and diversity: A minimalist perspective’, Linguistic Variation 11: 189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sprouse, J., Wagers, M. and Phillips, C. 2012. ‘A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects’, Language 88: 82–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tattersall, I. 1998. Becoming human: Evolution and human uniqueness. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Tattersall, I. 2012. Masters of the planet: The search for human origins. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Terrace, H. 1979. Nim. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Terrace, H. 2005. ‘Metacognition and the evolution of language’, in Terrace, H. and Metcalfe, J. (eds.), The missing link in cognition: Origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford University Press, pp. 84–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Venneman, Th. 1974. ‘Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX’, in Anderson, J. and Jones, C. (eds.), Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 339–76.Google Scholar

Venneman, Th. 1984. ‘Typology, universals, and change of language’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 23). Berlin: Mouton, pp. 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Worden, R. P. 1995. ‘A speed limit for evolution’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 176: 137–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Andersen, H. 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49: 567–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 1987. ‘From auxiliary to desinence’, in Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 1989. ‘Understanding linguistic innovations’, in Breivik, L. E. an Jahr, E. H. (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 1990. ‘The structure of drift’, in Andersen, H. and Konrad, K. (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th international Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 2001a. ‘Markedness and the theory of linguistic change’, in Andersen, (ed.), pp. 19–57.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. 2001b. ‘Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change’, in Andersen, (ed.), pp. 225–48.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. (ed.) 2001c. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 2006. ‘Synchrony, diachrony, and evolution’, in Thomsen, (ed.), pp. 59–90.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. 2008. ‘Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change’, in Eythórsson, T. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory. The Rosendal Papers (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, R. [1972] 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Burch, R. 2014. ‘Charles Sanders Peirce’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2014 edition), available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/. Accessed 30 May 2015.Google Scholar

Coseriu, E. 1957. ‘Sincronía, diacronía e historia: El problema del cambio lingüístico’, Revista de la Faculdad de Humanidades y Ciencias 15: 201–355. Also as Sincronía, diacronía e historia: El problema del cambio lingüístico. Montevideo: Universidad de la Republica, Faculdad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Investigaciones y estudios, 1958, 3rd edition. Madrid: Gredos, 1978.Google Scholar

Coseriu, E. [1968] 1970. ‘Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie’, in Petersen, U., Bertsch, H. and Köhler, G. (eds.), Sprache: Strukturen und Funktionen. 12 Aufsätze zur allgemeinen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 91–108. (Translated from ‘Sincronía, diacronía y tipología’, Actas del 11 Congreso Internacional de Lingüística i Filología Romanicas, 1: 269–83. Madrid 1968.)Google Scholar

Deutscher, G. 2002. ‘On the misuse of the notion of “abduction” in linguistics’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 469–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feibleman, J. K. 1970. An introduction to the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Heine, B. 2003. ‘Grammaticalization’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 575–601.Google Scholar

Janda, R. and Joseph, B. 2003. ‘On language, change, and language change – or, Of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 3–180.Google Scholar

Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ketner, K. L. and Putnam, H. (eds.) 1992. Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conference lectures of 1898 of Charles Peirce. Introduction by Ketner, K. L. and Putnam, H.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Milroy, J. 1992. Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. 1931–66. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, ed. Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P and Burks, A. W., vols. 1–8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Rittel, T. 1975. Szyk członów w obrębie form czasu przeszłego i trybu przypuszczającego. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar

Ross, W. D. 1949. Aristotle. Prior and posterior analytics: A revised text with introduction and commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, E. [1921] 1949. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 1985. ‘The child as linguistic icon maker’, in Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–6, 1983 (Typological studies in language, 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–48.Google Scholar

Smith, R. 1989. Aristotle. Prior analytics, trans., with introduction, notes and commentary. Indianapolis: Hacket.Google Scholar

Soukharov, A. H. et al. (eds.) 1992. The American heritage dictionary of the English language, 3rd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Tarde, G. 1903. Laws of imitation. New York: Holt. English translation of de Tarde, Gabriel, Les lois de l’imitation: Étude sociologique. Paris: F. Alcan, 1873.Google Scholar

Thomsen, O. N. 2006a. ‘Towards an integrated functional-pragmatic theory of language and language change. In commemoration of Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002)’, in Thomsen, (ed.), pp. 307–38.Google Scholar

Thomsen, O. N. (ed.). 2006b. Competing models of linguistic change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,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, pp. 141–77.Google Scholar

Topolińska, Z. 1961. Z historii akcentu polskiego od wieku XVI do dziś. (Prace językoznawcze, 27). Warsaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar

Vaillant, A. 1964. Manuel du vieux slave, vol. 1: Grammaire. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.Google Scholar

Whewell, W. 1837. History of the inductive sciences, 3rd edition. London: J. W. Parker.Google Scholar

Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.) 1995. Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bennett, P. 1979. ‘Observations on the transparency principle’, Linguistics 17: 843–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Denison, D. 1985. ‘The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered’, in Eaton, R. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 10–13, 1985. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. C. M. and van der Leek, F. C. 1981. ‘Optional vs radical re-analysis: Mechanisms of syntactic change’, Lingua 55: 301–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, O. C. M., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M. 1962. ‘Phonology in generative grammar’, Word 18: 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.) 2012. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax’, Foundations of Language 4: 30–57.Google Scholar

Klima, E. 1964. ‘Relatedness between grammatical systems’, Language 40: 1–20.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: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘The syntax of verb movement in 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

Lakoff, G. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Li, C. N. (ed.) 1975. Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Li, C. N. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 1994. Review of Roberts 1993, Language 70: 571–8.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1995. ‘Grammars for people’, Journal of Linguistics 31: 393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 2011. ‘Multilingualism everywhere’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 162–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 2013. ‘Types of explanation’, Language 89.4: e18–e38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. and Pires, A. 2013. Syntactic change. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographies Online: Linguistics. www.oxfordbibliographies.com.Google Scholar

Lord, C. 1973. ‘Serial verbs in transition’, Studies in African Linguistics 4.3: 269–96.Google Scholar

Lord, C. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions (Typological Studies in Language 26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meisel, J. M. 2011. First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. 1986. Linguistic theory in America: The first quarter-century of transformational generative grammar, 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paul, H. 1877. ‘Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungssilben in den ältesten germanischen Dialecten’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 4: 314–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paul, H. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google 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.), Language acquisition and learnability. Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Romaine, S. 1981. ‘The Transparency Principle: What it is and why it doesn’t work’, Lingua 55: 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schachter, P. 1974. ‘A non-transformational account of serial verbs’, Studies in African Linguistics, suppl. 5: 253–71.Google Scholar

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

Snyder, W. 2011. ‘Children’s grammatical conservatism: Implications for syntactic theory’, in Danis, N. et al. (eds.), BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University conference on language development, vol. 1. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1965. ‘Diachronic syntax and generative grammar’, Language 41: 402–15.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. 1969. ‘Toward a grammar of syntactic change’, Lingua 23: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1975. ‘An explanation of drift’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 269–305.Google Scholar

Wallenberg, J. Forthcoming. ‘Extraposition is disappearing’, Language.Google Scholar

Anthony, D. W. 2007. The horse, the wheel and language: How Broze Age riders shaped the modern world. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘Contrastive hierarchies in phonology and syntax: The role of third factors (or: Why phonology is not different)’, MS, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Bomhard, A. R. 1998. ‘Nostratic, Eurasiatic and Indo-European’, in Salmons, J. C. and Joseph, B. D. (eds.), Nostratic: Shifting the evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, L. 1988. ‘Review of Greenberg (1987)’, Language 64: 591–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campbell, L. and Poser, W. J. 2008. Language classification: History and method. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Christy, T. C. 1983. Uniformitarianism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. 2003. Language typology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

D’Enrico, F. and Vanhaeren, M. 2012. ‘Linguistic implications of the earliest personal ornaments’, in Tallerman, M. and Gibson, K. and (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford University Press, pp. 299–302.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S. (2013). ‘Order of object and verb’, in Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/83, accessed on 11 August 2015.)Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. 1965. ‘Is uniformitarianism necessary?’, American Journal of Science 263: 223–8.Google Scholar

Gould, S. J. 1987. Time’s arrow, time’s cycle: Myth and metaphor in the discovery of geological time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. 2005. Genetic linguistics: Essays on theory and method. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heggarty, P. 2015. ‘Prehistory through language and archeology’, in Bowern, C. and Evans, B. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 598–626.Google Scholar

Heggarty, P. and Renfrew, C. 2014a. ‘Western and Central Asia: Languages’, in Renfrew, and Bahn, (eds.), pp. 1678–99.Google Scholar

Heggarty, P. and Renfrew, C. 2014b. ‘Europe and the Mediterranean: Languages’, in Renfrew, and Bahn, (eds.), pp. 1977–93.Google Scholar

Hooykaas, R. 1963. Natural law and divine miracle: The principle of uniformity in geology, biology, and theology. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

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

Janda, R. and Joseph, B. 2003. ‘On language, change, and language change – or, Of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics’, in Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–180.Google Scholar

Law, V. 2003. The history of linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyell, C. 1830–3. Principles of geology, being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation, vols. 1–3. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Lyell, C. 1863. Geologic evidence of the history of man. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Metcalf, G. J. 1974. ‘The Indo-European hypothesis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, in Hymes, D. (ed.), Studies in the history of linguistics traditions and paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 233–57.Google Scholar

Morpurgo-Davies, A. 1998. Nineteenth-century linguistics, vol. IV of Lepschy, G. (ed.), History of linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Müller, F. M. 1864. Lectures on the science of language, vol. 2. Reprinted by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Library Collection, 2013.Google Scholar

Nettle, D. 1999. ‘Is the rate of linguistic change constant?’ Lingua 108: 119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, J. 1990. ‘Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World,’ Language 66(3): 475–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, J. 1997. ‘Modeling ancient population structures and movement in linguistics’, Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 359–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Osthoff, H. and Brugmann, K. 1878. ‘Vorwort’, in Osthoff, H. and Brugmann, K. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, pp. iii–xx. Reprinted by Cambridge University Press. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600101.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. (eds.) 2014. The Cambridge world prehistory, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ringe, D. 1992. ‘On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison’, Transactions of the American Philological Society 82(1): 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ringe, D. 1998. ‘A probabilistic evaluation of Indo-Uralic’, in Salmons, J. C. and Joseph, B. D. (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 154–98.Google Scholar

Ringe, D. 2013. ‘The linguistic diversity of Aboriginal Europe’, in Chen, S.-F. and Slade, B. (eds.), Grammatica et verba, glamor and verve: A festschrift for Hans Henrich Hock. Beechstave Press, pp. 202–12.Google Scholar

Ringe, D. and Eska, J. F. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first-century reintegration. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scharf, Peter M. 2013. ‘Linguistics in India’, in Allan, K. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics. Oxford University Press, pp. 227–58.Google Scholar

Staal, J. F. 1974. ‘The origin and development of linguistics in India’, in Hymes, D. (ed.), Studies in the history of linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 63–74.Google Scholar

Tallerman, M. and Gibson, K. (eds.) 2012. The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tegmark, D. 2014. Our mathematical universe: My quest for the ultimate nature of reality. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Wells, R. 1973. ‘Uniformitarianism in linguistics’, in Wiener, P. R. (ed.), Dictionary of the history of ideas, vol. 4. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 423–31.Google Scholar

Whewell, W. 1837. History of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present times, 3 vols. London: Parker.Google Scholar

Whewell, W. 1840. Philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history, 2 vols. London: Parker.Google Scholar

Ackema, P. 2002. ‘A morphological approach to the absence of expletive PRO’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 291–319.Google Scholar

Battistella, E. 1996. The logic of markedness. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berwick, R. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Paola, C. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 58–74.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, L.L.-S. 1991. ‘On the typology of wh-questions’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Cheng, L.L.-S. 2003a. ‘Wh-in-situ’, Glot International 7(4): 103–9.Google Scholar

Cheng, L.L.-S. 2003b. ‘Wh-in-situ: Part II’, Glot International 7(5): 129–37.Google Scholar

Chomsky, C. 1969. Acquisition of syntax in children 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Chomsky, N. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2004. ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’, in Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 104–31.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1977. ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar

Croft, W. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. 1990. ‘Understood subjects in English diaries’, Multilingua 9: 157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2006. ‘Against markedness (and what to replace it with)’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hume, E. 2005. ‘Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 182–98. Available on line http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/article/viewFile/796/685.Google Scholar

Hume, E. 2011. ‘Markedness’, in van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C.J., Hume, E. and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 1. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 79–106.Google Scholar

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

Jakobson, R. 1941. Kindersparche, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. English translation: Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals, trans. Kiesler, A.. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Koster, J. and Reuland, E. (eds.) 1991. Long-distance anaphora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. 2007. A unification of morphology and syntax: Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pires, A. and Taylor, H. 2007. ‘The syntax of wh-in situ and common ground’, Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43(2): 201–15.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1986. ‘Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar

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

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

Smith, A. 1988. ‘Language acquisition: Learnability, maturation, and the fixing of parameters’, Cognitive Neuropsychology 5(2): 235–65.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, N. 1931. ‘Die phonologischen Systeme’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4: 96–116.Google Scholar

Tsimpli, I. M. 1996. The prefunctional stage of first language acquisition: A crosslinguistic study. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Tsimpli, I. M. 2005. ‘Peripheral positions in early Greek’, in Stavrou, M. and Terzi, A. (eds.), Advances in Greek generative syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsimpli, I. M. and Hulk, A. 2013. ‘Grammatical gender and the notion of default: Insights from language acquisition’, Lingua 137: 128–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vlachos, C. 2012. ‘Wh-constructions and the division of labour between syntax and the interfaces’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Patras.Google Scholar

Wexler, K. and Manzini, M. R. 1987. ‘Parameters and learnability in binding theory’, in Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (eds.), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, A. 1978. ‘On markedness in morphology’, Die Sprache 24: 129–43.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J. (eds.) 1981. The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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

Chomsky, N. 1980. ‘On binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar

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

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

Chomsky, N. [1957] 2002. Syntactic structures, 2nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, R. 1992. ‘The selection of syntactic knowledge’, Language Acquisition 2: 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, B. E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellegård, A. 1954. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. 1998. ‘Unambiguous triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, E. and Wexler, K. 1994. ‘Triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 407–54.Google Scholar

Grimm, J. 1848. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, vol. 1. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Heinz, J. and Idsardi, W. 2011. ‘Sentence and word complexity’, Science 333(6040): 295–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Wilson, F. and Vikner, S. 2012. ‘Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese’, Language 88: 558–600.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: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

Lightfoot, D.W. 2013. ‘Types of explanation in history’, Language 89.4: e18–e38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McWhorter, J. 2009. ‘What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis’, English Language and Linguistics 13: 163–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

O’Neil, W. 1978. ‘The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A case study in the causes of language change’, Orbis 27: 248–85.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Snyder, W. 2011. ‘Children’s grammatical conservatism: Implications for syntactic theory’, in Danis, N. et al. (eds.), BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University conference on language development, vol. 1. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Tinbergen, N. 1957. The herring gull’s world. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. 1995. ‘Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework’, Language 71: 533–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar