Baker, C. L. 1979. ‘Syntactic theory and the projection problem’, Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 533–81.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 2008. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 351–74.Google Scholar

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

Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2008. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2011. ‘In defence of lexico-centric parametric variation: Two 3rd factor-constrained case studies’, paper presented at the Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation: Rethinking Parameters, Madrid.Google Scholar

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

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. (eds.) 2010. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP-parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Cascading parameter changes: Internally driven change in Middle and Early Modern English’, in Eythórsson, Th. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. ‘The return of the subset principle’, in Crisma, and Longobardi, (eds.), pp. 58–74.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, in Chancharu, J., Hu, X. and Mitrović, M. (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 209–36.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘Conditional inversion and types of parametric change’, paper presented at the 40th Incontro di grammatica generativa, Trento.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2010. ‘Impossible changes and impossible borrowings: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Breitbarth, A., Lucas, C., Watts, S. and Willis, D. (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2011. ‘Negative concord in Afrikaans: Filling a typological gap’, Journal of Semantics 29(3): 345–71.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Zeijlstra, H. 2012. ‘Negative changes: Three factors and the diachrony of Afrikaans negation’, in Galves, , Cyrino, , Sândalo, , Lopes, and Avelar, (eds.), pp. 237–63.Google Scholar

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

Branigan, P. 2012. ‘Macroparameter learnability: An Algonquian case study’, unpublished MS, Memorial University, Newfoundland.Google Scholar

Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early years. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. 1970. ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 11–53.Google 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. 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. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Clark, A. and Lappin, S. 2011. Linguistic nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Corblin, F., Déprez, V., de Swart, H. and Tovena, L. 2004. ‘Negative concord’, in Corblin, F. and de Swart, H. (eds.), Handbok of French semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 417–52.Google Scholar

Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds) 2009. Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davison, A. 2007. ‘Word order, parameters and the extended COMP projection’, in Bayer, J., Bhattacharya, T. and Hany Babu, M. Veettil Tharayil (eds.), Linguistic theory and South Asian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–98.Google Scholar

Dell, F. 1981. ‘On the learnability of optional phonological rules’, Linguistic Inquiry 12(1): 31–7.Google Scholar

Denison, D. 1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English language, vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar

Deterding, D., Ling Low, E. and Brown, A. 2003. English in Singapore: Research on grammar. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, E. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, E. 2013. ‘The arch not the stones: Universal Feature Theory without universal features’, paper presented at the Conference on Features in Phonology, Morphology, Syntax and Semantics: What Are They?, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. and Kaye, J. 1990. ‘A computational learning model for Metrical Phonology’, Cognition 34(1): 137–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

Duguine, M. and Irurtzun, A. 2014. ‘From obligatory wh-movement to optional wh-in-situ in Labourdin Basque’, Language 90(1): e1–e30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evers, A. and van Kampen, J. 2008. ‘Parameter setting and input reduction’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 483–515.Google Scholar

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

Fisher, C. 2002. ‘The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000)’, Cognition 82: 259–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J. D. 1998. ‘Unambiguous triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 19(1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, J. D. and Sakas, W. 2004. ‘Evaluating models of parameter setting’, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 28). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Fontana, J. 1993. ‘Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Frank, R. and Kapur, S. 1996. ‘On the use of triggers in parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 623–60.Google Scholar

Fukui, N. 1986. ‘A theory of category projection and its applications’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Fuß, E. and Trips, C. 2002. ‘Variation and change in Old and Middle English – on the validity of the double base hypothesis’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Sândalo, F., Lopes, R. and Avelar, J. (eds.) 2012. Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gentner, D. and Boroditsky, L. 2001. ‘Individuation, relational relativity and early word learning’, in Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–56.Google Scholar

Giannakidou, A. 2000. ‘Negative … Concord?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibson, E. and Wexler, K. 1994. ‘Triggers’, Linguistic Inquiry 25(3): 407–54.Google Scholar

Gold, E. M. 1967. ‘Language identication in the limit’, Information and Control 10: 447–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S., Butcher, C., Mylander, C. and Dodge, M. 1994. ‘Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: what’s in a name?’, Cognitive Psychology 27: 259–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 1998. ‘Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition’, Linguistic Inquiry 29(4): 656–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, M. and Reiss, C. 2003. ‘The subset principle in phonology: Why the tabula can’t be rasa’, Journal of Linguistics 39(2): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. ‘How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2/3): 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2005. ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null subject parameters’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 88–112.Google Scholar

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

Jäger, A. 2008. History of German negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Keenan, E. 1998. ‘The historical creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar

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

Keenan, E. 2009. ‘Linguistic theory and the historical creation of English reflexives’, in Crisma, and Longobardi, (eds.), pp. 17–40.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, K., Denton, J., Knippen, B., Meinar, L., Suzuki, H. and Zeinfeld, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirtieth annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 629–739.Google 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

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

Liberman, M. and Sag, I. 1974. ‘Prosodic form and discourse function’, Chicago Linguistics Society 10: 416–27.Google Scholar

Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. and Gleitman, L. 2003. ‘Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar’, Cognition 87(3): 151–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lidz, J. and Gleitman, L. 2004. ‘Argument structure and the child’s contribution to language learning’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(4): 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

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

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

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

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

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

MacSwan, J. 2000. ‘The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(1): 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marcus, G. 1993. ‘Negative evidence in language acquisition’, Cognition 46: 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moerenhout, M. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Object–verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: An exploratory study’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newport, E., Gleitman, L. and Gleitman, H. 1977. ‘Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style’, in Snow, C. and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquistion. Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–49.Google Scholar

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

Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. 1991. ‘Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. and Taylor, A. 2006. ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 249–78.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. 1995. ‘The diachronic development of subject clitics in North-Eastern Italian dialects’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richards, M. 2008. ‘Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system’, in Heck, F., Müller, G. and Trommer, J. (eds.), Varieties of competition: Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Leipzig University, pp. 133–62.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. 2010. ‘A deletion analysis of null subjects’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 58–87.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, , Cyrino, , Sândalo, , Lopes, and Avelar, (eds.), pp. 320–35.Google Scholar

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

Rögnvaldsson, E. 1996. ‘Word order variation in the VP in Old Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 58: 55–86.Google Scholar

Sakas, W. and Fodor, J. D. 2012. ‘Disambiguating syntactic triggers’, Language Acquisition 19: 83–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Santorini, B. 1989. ‘The generalization of the verb-second constraint in the history of Yiddish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Santorini, B. 1992. ‘Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 595–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Speyer, A. 2008. ‘On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English, with a few remarks on German’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Taylor, A. 1990. ‘Clitics and configurationality in Ancient Greek’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Taylor, A. and Pintzuk, S. 2012. ‘Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status’, in Traugott, E. C. and Nevalainen, T. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford University Press, pp. 835–45.Google Scholar

Thráinsson, H. 2003. ‘Syntactic variation, historical development, and minimalism’, in Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 152–91.Google Scholar

Travis, L. 1984. ‘Parameters and effects of word order variation’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

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

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

Walkden, G. 2012. ‘Against Inertia’, Lingua 122(8): 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wallenberg, J. 2009. ‘Antisymmetry and the conservation of c-command: scrambling and phrase structure in synchronic and diachronic perspective’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Wexler, K. and Culicover, P. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Yang, C. 2013. ‘Tipping Points’, talk given at the 36 Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW36) Conference, Lund.Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, H. 2004. ‘Sentential negation and negative concord’, unpublished PhD thesis, Amsterdam University.Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, H. 2008. ‘On the syntactic flexibility of formal features’, in Biberauer, (ed.), pp. 143–73.Google Scholar