Adams, J. 1976. ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, Indogermanische Forschungen 81: 70–99.Google Scholar

Adams, J. 2013. ‘Past participle + habeo’, in Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge University Press, pp. 615–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Andrade, A. and Galves, C. 2014. ‘A unified analysis of subject topics in Brazilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 13: 117–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aub-Büscher, G. 1962. Le parler rural de Ranrupt (Bas Rhin). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Avelar, J. 2009. ‘Inversão locativa e sintaxe de concordância no português brasileiro’, Matraga 16: 232–52.Google Scholar

Avelar, J. and Galves, C. 2011. ‘Tópico e concordância em português brasileiro e português europeu’, in Costa, A., Falé, I. and Barbosa, P. (eds.), Textos seleccionados, XXVI Encontro nacional da associação portuguesa de linguística. Lisbon: APL, pp. 49–65.Google Scholar

Avram, L. 1994. ‘Auxiliary configurations in English and Romanian’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 5–6: 493–510.Google Scholar

Avram, L. and Hill, V. 2007. ‘An irrealis BE auxiliary in Romanian’, in Aranovich, R. (ed.), Split auxiliary systems: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Baker, M. 2001. The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Baker, M. 2008b. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 351–74.Google Scholar

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

Bauche, H. 1946. Le langage populaire: Grammaire, syntaxe et dictionnaire du français tel qu’on le parle dans le peuple avec tous les termes d’argot usuel. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. 1995. The emergence and development of SVO patterning in Latin and French. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, D. 2006. Split intransitivity in Italian. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, D. 2016. ‘Split intransitivity’, in Ledgeway, and Martin, (eds.), pp. 821–32.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1950. ‘Actif et moyen dans le verbe’, Journal de Psychologie 43: 119–27. (Reprinted in Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale I. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 168–75.)Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1960. ‘“Être” et “avoir” dans leurs fonctions linguistiques’, Bulletin de la Société linguistique de Paris, 55: 113–34. (Reprinted in Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale I. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 187–207.)Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1965. ‘Structure des relations d’auxiliarité’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 9: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Besten, H.. 1983. ‘On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules’, in Abraham, W. (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2015a. ‘Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification’, in Chancharu, J., Hu, X. and Mitrović, M. (eds.), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–31.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2015b. ‘Clausal hierarchies’, in Shlonsky, U. (ed.), Beyond functional sequence. Oxford University Press, pp. 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. forthcoming a. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations’, in Kroch, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the XII Diachronic Generative Syntax Meeting. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. forthcoming b. ‘Conditional inversion and types of parametric change’, in Los, B. and de Haan, P. (eds.), Verb-second languages: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M. 2014. ‘No-choice parameters and the limits of syntactic variation’, in Santana-LaBarge, R. (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 46–55.Google Scholar

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

Bošković, Ž. 2008. ‘What will you have, DP or NP?’, in Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 101–14.Google Scholar

Brandi, L. and Cordin, P. 1989. ‘Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter’, in Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds.), The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 111–42.Google Scholar

Branigan, P. 2014. ‘Macroparameter learnability: An Algonquian case study’, unpublished MS, Memorial University Newfoundland.Google Scholar

Calboli, G. (ed.) 1989. Subordination and other topics in Latin: Proceedings of the third colloquium on Latin linguistics, Bologna, 1–5 April 1985. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. 2004. ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The structure of CP and IP. Oxford University of Press, pp. 115–65.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. 1999. ‘The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns’, in van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 145–235.Google Scholar

Cennamo, M. 2016. ‘Voice’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 967–80.Google Scholar

Charpin, F. 1989. ‘Etude de syntaxe énonciative: L’ordre des mots et la phrase’, in Calboli, (ed.), pp. 503–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.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. 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.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 4. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, B. 1978. ‘Ergativity’, in Lehmann, W. P. (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas, pp. 329–94.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. and Ledgeway, A. 2010. ‘The Abruzzese T-v system: Feature spreading and the double auxiliary construction’, in D’Alessandro, , Ledgeway, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 201–9.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.) 2010. Syntactic variation: The dialects of Italy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. 2010. ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null‐subject parameter’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dankaert, L. 2012. Latin embedded clauses: The left periphery. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dauby, J. 1979. Le livre du ‘rouchi’: Parler picard de Valenciennes. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar

Descusses, M. 1986. Le patois ardennais de Gespunsart. Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar

Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. 2006. Latin word order: Structured meaning and information. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dragomirescu, A. 2010. Ergativitatea: Tipologie, sintaxă, semantică. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.Google Scholar

Dragomirescu, A. and Nicolae, A. 2009. ‘Relics of auxiliary selection in Romanian’, unpublished MS, Iorgu Iordan − Al. Rosetti Institute of Linguistics, Bucharest and University of Bucharest.Google Scholar

Duarte, E. 1995. ‘A perda do princípio “evite pronome” no português brasileiro’, unpublished PhD thesis, Unicamp.Google Scholar

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

Dryer, M. S. 2013a. ‘Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun’, in Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.). Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/95. Accessed 20 September 2015.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S. 2013b. ‘Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of relative clause and noun’, in Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds.). Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/96. Accessed 20 September 2015.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. 1978. ‘The verbal complex V-V′ in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–75.Google Scholar

Ernout, A. and Thomas, F. 1953. Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.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

Flutre, L.-F. 1955. Le Parler picard de Mesnil-Martinsart (Somme). Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. and Sakas, W. G. Forthcoming. ‘Learnability’, in Roberts, (ed.).Google Scholar

Freeze, R. 1992. ‘Existentials and other locatives’, Language 68, 3: 553–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frellesvig, B. 2010. A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, A. 1990. ‘The syntax of Anatolian pronominal clitics’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Giancarli, P.-D. 2011. Les auxiliaires être et avoir: Étude comparée corse, français, acadien et anglais. Rennes: Presses Université de Rennes.Google Scholar

Gray, D. 1985. The Oxford book of late medieval prose and verse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Greco, P. 2012. La complementazione frasale nelle cronache latine dell’Italia centro-meridionale (secoli X-XII). Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar

Guiraud, P. 1969. Le Français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Hale, K. 1981. On the position of Warlpiri in a typology of the base. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Hale, K. 1982. ‘Preliminary remarks on configurationality’, in Pustejovsky, J. and Sells, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth annual meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GSLA, pp. 86–96.Google Scholar

Hale, K. 1983. ‘Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, M. 1995. ‘Wackernagel’s Law in the Rigveda’, unpublished MS, University of Concordia.Google Scholar

Harder, A. 1998. ‘La declinazione dei verbi in un dialetto di transizione nelle Marche’, in Ruffino, G. (ed.), Atti del XXI congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza. Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, Università di Palermo 18–24 settembre 1995. Volume V, sezione 5, Dialettologia, geolinguistica, sociolinguistica. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 389–99.Google Scholar

Harley, H. and Ritter, E. 2002. ‘A feature-geometric analysis of person and number’, Language 78(3): 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Hendschel, L. 2012. Li Croejhete walone: Contribution à une grammaire de la langue wallonne. http://home.base.be/vt6134585/croejhete.pdf.Google Scholar

Herman, J. 1989. ‘Accusativus cum infinitivo et subordonné à quod, quia en latin tardif: Nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème’, in Calboli, (ed.), pp. 133–52.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null subject parameters’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 88–124.Google Scholar

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

Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. ‘Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Huang, J. 2015. ‘On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory’, in Li, A., Simpson, A. and Dylan Tsai, W.-T. (eds.), Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. and Roberts, I. Forthcoming. ‘Principles and parameters of universal grammar’, in Roberts, (ed.).Google Scholar

Iannace, G. 1983. Interferenza linguistica ai confini fra Stato e Regno: Il dialetto di San Leucio del Sannio. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar

Iatridou, S. 2000. ‘The grammatical ingredients to counterfactuality’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, R. 1972. ‘Subject inversion in French interrogatives’, in Casagrande, J. and Saciuk, B. (eds.), Generative studies in Romance languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 70–126.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, R. 1993. ‘Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection’, Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kayne, R. 1996. ‘Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks’, in Black, J. and Montapanyane, V. (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialectal variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. ix–xviii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kayne, R. 2005a. Movement and silence. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, R. 2005b. ‘Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French’, in Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), Handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 3–69.Google Scholar

King, R. and Nadasdi, T. 2005. ‘Deux auxiliaires qui voulaient mourir en français acadien’, in Brasseur, P. and Falkert, A. (eds.), Français d’Amérique: Approches morphosyntaxiques. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 103–11.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1995. ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Battye, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 140–69.Google Scholar

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

Ledgeway, A. 2003. ‘L’estensione dell’ausiliare perfettivo avere nell’antico napoletano: Intransitività scissa condizionata da fattori modali’, Archivio glottologico italiano 88: 27–71.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2011. ‘Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change in Latin and Romance’, in Maiden, M., Smith, J. C. and Ledgeway, A. (eds.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Cambridge University Press, pp. 382–471, 724–34.Google Scholar

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

Ledgeway, A. 2012b. ‘From Latin to Romance: The rise of configurationality, functional categories and head-marking’, in Barδdal, J., Cennamo, M. and van Gelderen, E. (eds.), Variation and change in argument realisation. Oxford: Blackwell. Special Issue of the Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 422–42.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2013. ‘Greek disguised as Romance? The case of southern Italy’, in Janse, M., Joseph, B. D., Ralli, A. and Bagriacik, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Greek dialects and linguistic theory. Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras, pp.184–228. Available at http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MGDLT5_proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2014a. ‘Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence’, in Pană Dindelegan, G., Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A., Nicula, I. and Nicolae, A. (eds.), Diachronic variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2014b. ‘Parametrului poziţiei centrului şi efectele sale pragmatice în trecerea de la latină la limbile romance’, in Zafiu, R., Dragomirescu, A. and Nicolae, A. (eds.), Diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, pp. 11–26.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2015. ‘Parallels in Romance nominal and clausal microvariation’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 60: 105–27.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2016a. ‘Functional categories’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 761–71.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2016b. ‘Sentential complementation’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 1013–28.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming a. ‘From Latin to Romance: The decline of edge-fronting’, in Cardosa, A. and Martins, A. M. (eds.), Word order change. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming b. ‘Parameters in Romance adverb agreement’, in Hummel, M. and Valera, S. (eds.), Adjective–adverb interfaces in Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming c. ‘Syntheticity and analyticity’, in Dufter, A. and Stark, E. (eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax (to appear in series Manual of Romance linguistics, edited by Holtus, G. and Miret, F. Sánchez). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. Forthcoming d. ‘From Latin to Romance syntax: The great leap’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of diachronic and historical linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.) 2016. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, K.-M. and Ramsey, S. R. 2011. A history of the Korean language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legendre, G. 2010. ‘A formal typology of person-based auxiliary selection in Italo-Romance’, in D’Alesssandro, , Ledgeway, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 186–200.Google Scholar

Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1976. ‘Subject and topic: A new typology of language’, in Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–89.Google Scholar

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

Loporcaro, M. 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar

Loporcaro, M. 2007. ‘On triple auxiliation’, Linguistics 45: 173–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loporcaro, M. 2016. ‘Auxiliary selection and participial agreement’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 802–18.Google Scholar

Lüdtke, H. 1974. ‘Die Mundart von Ripatransone – ein sprachtypologisches Kuriosum’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Philologica 5: 173–77.Google Scholar

Lüdtke, H. 1976. ‘La declinazione dei verbi in un dialetto di transizione marchigiano-abruzzese’, Abruzzo 14: 79–84.Google Scholar

Maiden, M. and Robustelli, C. 2007. A Reference grammar of modern Italian. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar

Mancini, A. M. 1993. ‘Le caratteristiche morfosintattiche del dialetto di Ripatransone (AP), alla luce di nuove ricerche’, in Balducci, S. (ed.), I dialetti delle Marche meridionali. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, pp. 111–36.Google Scholar

Manente, M. 2008. ‘L’aspect, les auxiliaires ‘être’ et ‘avoir’ et l’hypothèse inaccusative dans une perspective comparative français/italien’, unpublished PhD thesis, Universities of Venice and Paris VIII.Google Scholar

Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generative, 3 vols. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1949. L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Marouzeau, J. 1953. L’ordre des mots en latin: Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Matisoff, J. 1990. ‘On megalocomparison’, Language 66(1): 106–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, G. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, M. 1991. The languages of North America. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Molinelli, P. 1988. Fenomeni della negazione dal latino all’italiano. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar

Motapanyane, V. (ed.) 2000. Comparative studies in Romanian syntax. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevaci, M. and Todi, A. 2009. ‘The grammaticalization of perfect auxiliaries in Romanian. historical and dialectal aspects’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 54: 137–50.Google Scholar

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

Newton, G. 2006. ‘The development of the Old Irish system of verbal inflection’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Nordahl, H. 1977. ‘Assez avez alé: Estre et avoir comme auxiliaires du verbe aler en ancien français’, Revue romane 12(1): 54–67.Google Scholar

Oniga, R. 2004. Il latino: Breve introduzione linguistica. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar

Pană Dindelegan, G. 2013. ‘The participle’, in Dindelegan, G. P. (ed.), The grammar of Romanian. Oxford University Press, pp. 222–32.Google Scholar

Pancheva, R. 2008. ‘Head-directionality of TP in Old Church Slavonic’, in Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. and Bethin, C. (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 16: The Stony Brook meeting, 2007. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 313–32.Google Scholar

Parrino, F. 1967. ‘Su alcune particolarità della coniugazione nel dialetto di Ripatransone’, L’Italia dialettale 30: 156–66.Google Scholar

Pinkster, H. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. 1995. ‘The diachronic development of subject clitics in North Eastern Italian dialects’, in Battye, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 295–24.Google Scholar

Poletto, C. 2000. The higher functional field. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poletto, C. 2016. ‘Negation’, in Ledgeway, and Maiden, (eds.), pp. 833–46.Google Scholar

Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar

Pollock, J-Y. 2006. ‘Subject-clitic inversion, complex inversion and stylistic inversion in French’, in Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 601–59.Google Scholar

Powell, J. 2010. ‘Hyperbaton and register in Cicero’, in Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.), Colloquial and literary Latin. Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–85.Google Scholar

Rea, B. 2014. ‘Aspects of pronoun and auxiliary morphology in French, with particular reference to spoken Montréal French’, unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar

Remacle, L. 1956. Syntaxe du parler wallon de La Gleize. Paris: Les Belles lettres.Google Scholar

Ringe, D. 2006. A history of English, vol. I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ritter, E. and Wiltschko, M. 2014. ‘The composition of INFL: An exploration of Tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1331–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Rizzi, L. 1986. ‘On the status of subject clitics in Romance’, in Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 391–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. and Roberts, I. 1989. ‘Complex inversion in French’, Probus 1: 1–30. (Reprinted in Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.) 1996. Parameters and functional heads. Oxford University Press, pp. 91–118.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 1985. ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 1996. Comparative syntax. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010a. ‘Varieties of French and the null subject parameter’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 303–26.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010b. ‘The pronominal domain: DP-NP structure, clitics and null subjects’, in D’Alessandro, , Ledgeway, and Roberts, (eds.), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010c. Agreement and head movement: Clitics and defective goals. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 2012. ‘Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative research’, in Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopez, R. and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford University Press, pp. 320–54.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2013. ‘Some speculations on the development of the Romance periphrastic perfect’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 58(1): 3–30.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2014a. ‘Subject clitics and macroparameters’, in Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Diachrony and dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy. Oxford University Press, pp. 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 2014b. ‘Taraldsen’s generalisation and diachronic syntax: Two ways to lose null subjects’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), Functional structure from top to toe: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 9. Oxford University Press, pp. 115–48.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. (ed.) Forthcoming. The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory’, in Biberauer, , Holmberg, , Roberts, and Sheehan, (eds.), pp. 1–57.Google Scholar

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

Russell, P. 1995. An introduction to the Celtic languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Salvi, G. 2011. ‘A formal approach to Latin word order’, in Oniga, R., Iovino, R. and Giusti, G. (eds.), Formal linguistics and the teaching of Latin: Theoretical and applied perspectives in comparative grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar

Sankoff, G. and Thibault, P. 1977. ‘L’alternance entre les auxiliaires avoir et être en français parlé à Montréal’, Langue française 34: 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar

Sheehan, M. 2014. ‘Towards a parameter hierarchy for alignment’, in Santana-LaBarge, R. E. (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 399–408.Google Scholar

Skjærvø, P. O. 2009. ‘Old Iranian languages’, in Windfuhr, G. (ed.), The Iranian languages. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 43–195.Google Scholar

Smith, J. C. 1999. ‘Markedness and morphosyntactic change revisited: The case of Romance past participle agreement’, in Embleton, S., Joseph, J. and Niederehe, H.-J. (eds.), The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E. F. K. Koerner, vol. 2: Methodological perspectives and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 203–15.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. 2000. ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sprouse, R. and Vance, B. 1999. ‘An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and romance dialects’, DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–84.Google Scholar

Steever, S. B. 1998. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stolova, N. 2006. ‘Split intransitivity in Old Spanish: Irrealis and negation factors’, Revue roumaine de linguistique 2: 301–20.Google Scholar

Taraldsen, T. 1978. ‘On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter’, unpublished MS, MIT.Google Scholar

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

Tesnière, L. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

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

Traugott, E. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Tuttle, E. 1986. ‘The spread of esse as universal auxiliary in central Italo-Romance’, Medioevo romanzo 11: 229–87.Google Scholar

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

Gelderen, E. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liaison,’ in Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 43–55.Google Scholar

van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.) 1997. Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge Universiy Press.Google Scholar

Vanelli, L., Renzi, L. and Benincà, P. 1985. ‘Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes’, in Actes du XVIIe congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, vol. 3: Linguistique descriptive, phonétique, morphologie et lexique. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, pp. 163–76.Google Scholar

Vasseur, G. 1996. Grammaire des parlers picards du Vimeu (Somme) avec considération spéciale du dialecte de Nibas. Abbeville: F. Paillart.Google Scholar

Vikner, S. 1985. ‘Reichenbach revisited: One, two, or three temporal relations’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vincent, N. 1982. ‘The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance’, in Vincent, N. and Harris, M. (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb: Essays offered to Joe Cremona on the occasion of his 60th birthday. London and Canberra: Croom Helm, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1987. ‘The interaction of periphrasis and inflection: Some Romance examples’, in Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), The historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–56.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1988. ‘Latin’, in Harris, M. and Vincent, N. (eds.), The Romance languages. London: Routledge, pp. 26–78.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1997. ‘The emergence of the D-system in Romance’, in van Kemenade, and Vincent, (eds.), pp. 149–69.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1998a. ‘Tra grammatica e grammaticalizzazione: Articoli e clitici nelle lingue (italo)-romanze’, in Ramat, P. and Roma, E. (eds.), Sintassi storica. Atti del XXX congresso internazionale della Società di linguistica italiana, Pavia, 26–28 settembre 1996. Rome: Bulzoni, pp. 411–40.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1998b. ‘On the grammar of inflected non-finite forms (with special reference to old Neapolitan)’, in Korzen, I. and Herslund, M. (eds.), Clause combining and text structure (Copenhagen Studies in Language 22). Copenhagen: Samfunds-litteratur, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 2000. ‘Competition and correspondence in syntactic change: Null arguments in Latin and Romance’, in Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar

Walkden, G. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Watkins, C. 1963. ‘Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb’, Celtica 6: 1–49.Google Scholar

Watkins, C. 1964. ‘Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure’, in Lunt, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international congress of linguists. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 1035–42.Google Scholar

Watumull, J. 2015. ‘The linguistic Turing machine’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. 2013. ‘Comparing diachronies of negation’, in Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.), The History of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. I: Case studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. 2015. ‘Restructuring cross-linguistically’, unpublished MS, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Yanagida, Y. 2005. ‘Word order and clause structure in Early Old Japanese’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yanagida, Y. and Whitman, J. 2009. ‘Alignment and word order in Old Japanese’, Journal of East Asia Asian Linguistics 18: 101–44.Google Scholar

Zribi-Hertz, A. 1994. ‘La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé’, in Kleiber, G. and Roques, G. (eds.), Travaux de linguistique et de philologie. Strasbourg-Nancy: Klincksieck, pp. 131–47.Google Scholar

Acedo-Matellán, V. 2010. ‘Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface: A case study in Latin and other languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar

Baker, M. 2008. ‘The macroparameter in a microparametric world’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 351–73.Google Scholar

Berwick, R.C., Beckers, G.J.L., Okanoya, K. and Bolhuis, J.J. 2012. ‘A bird’s eye view of human language evolution’, Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience 4, doi:10.3389/fnevo.2012.00005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berwick, R.C. and Chomsky, N. 2011. ‘The Biolinguistic Program: The current state of its development’, in Di Sciullo, and Boeckx, (eds.), pp. 19–41.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2011. ‘Approaching parameters from below’, in Di Sciullo, and Boeckx, (eds.), pp. 205–21.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2012. ‘The emergence of the language faculty, from a biolinguistic point of view’, in Tallerman, M. and Gibson, K. (eds.), Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford University Press, pp. 492–501.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2014a. ‘What principles & parameters got wrong’, in Picallo, C. (ed.), Linguistic variation and the minimalist program. Oxford University Press, pp. 155–78.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. 2014b. Elementary syntactic structures. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. and Leivada, E. 2013. ‘On the particulars of Universal Grammar: Implications for acquisition’, unpublished MS, ICREA & Universitat de Barcelona.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C., Leivada, E. and Martins, P.T. 2013. ‘Language and complexity considerations: A biolinguistic perspective’, Llengua, Societat i Comunicació 11: 20–6.Google Scholar

Bolender, J. 2007. ‘Prehistoric cognition by description: A Russellian approach to the upper paleolithic’, Biology and Philosophy 22: 383–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bošković, Ž. and Nunes, J. 2007. ‘The copy theory of movement: A view from PF’, in Corver, N. and Nunes, J. (eds.), The copy theory of movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1980. ‘Discussion of Putnam’s comments’, in Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.), Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 310–24.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981a. ‘On the representation of form and function’, The Linguistic Review 1: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981b. 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. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

Deacon, T.W. 2006. ‘Emergence: The hole at the wheel’s hub’, in Clayton, P. and Davies, P. (eds.), The re-emergence of emergence: The emergentist hypothesis from science to religion. Oxford University Press, pp. 111–50.Google Scholar

Deacon, T.W. 2010. ‘A role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 9000–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Di Sciullo, A.M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. 1974. An introduction to language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations’, in Hale, and Keyser, (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–76.Google Scholar

Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1993. ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Hale, and Keyser, (eds.), pp. 111–176.Google Scholar

Hinzen, W. 2006. Mind design and minimal syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jenks, P. 2012. ‘Definite spans and blocking in classifier languages’, unpublished MS, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Kirby, S. 2001. ‘Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure – an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity’, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5(2): 102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirby, S., Cornish, H. and Smith, K. 2008. ‘Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 10681–6.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

Lewis, M.P. (ed.) 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 16th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar

Lewontin, R. 2000. The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lohndal, T. and Narita, H. 2009. ‘Internalism as methodology’, Biolinguistics 3: 321–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C. 2009. ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’, Lingua 119: 1679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lupyan, G. and Dale, R. 2010. ‘Language structure is partly determined by social structure’, PLoS ONE 5: e8559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marantz, A. 1997. ‘No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, in Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Surek-Clark, C. and Williams, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn linguistics colloquium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 201–25.Google Scholar

Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C. and Aronoff, M. 2010. ‘Emerging sign languages’, in Marschark, M. and Spencer, P.E. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, pp. 267–80.Google Scholar

Mellars, P. 2006. ‘Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(25): 9381–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Okanoya, K. 2012. ‘Behavioural factors governing song complexity in Bengalese finches’, International Journal of Comparative Psychology 25: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P. 2008. ‘Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a Universal Semantics’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 219–45.Google Scholar

Real-Puigdollers, C. 2013. ‘Lexicalization by phase: The role of prepositions in argument structure and its cross-linguistic variation’, unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar

Richards, N. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Safir, K. 2014. One true anaphor, Linguistic Inquiry 45(1): 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sandler, W., Meir, I., Dachkovsky, S., Padden, C. and Aronoff, M. 2011. ‘The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax’, Lingua 121: 2014–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scott, D.A., Carmi, R., Elbedour, K., Duyk, G.M., Stone, E.M. and Sheffield, V.C. 1995. ‘Nonsyndromic autosomal recessive deafness is linked to the DFNB1 locus in a large inbred Bedouin family from Israel’, American Journal of Human Genetics 57: 965–8.Google Scholar

Senghas, A. 2003. ‘Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan Sign Language’, Cognitive Development 18: 511–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Senghas, A. 2005. ‘Language emergence: Clues from a new Bedouin sign language’, Current Biology 15: R463-R465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soma, M., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. and Okanoya, K. 2009. ‘Early ontogenetic effects on song quality in the Bengalese finch (Lonchura striata var. domestica): Laying order, sibling competition, and song syntax’, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 363–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic anchors. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Washabaugh, W. 1986. Five fingers for survival: Deaf sign language in the Caribbean. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Press.Google Scholar

West-Eberhard, M.J. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wray, A. and Grace, G. 2007. ‘The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form’, Lingua 117(3): 543–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abeillé, A. and Godard, D. 2010. ‘Complex predicates in the Romance languages’, in Godard, D. (ed.), Fundamental issues in the Romance languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 107–70.Google Scholar

Alsina, A. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Asudeh, A. and Toivonen, I. 2009. ‘Lexical-functional grammar’, in Heine, and Narrog, (eds.), pp. 425–58.Google Scholar

Bech, K. and Eide, K. G. 2014. Information structure and syntactic change in Germanic and Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, K. and Burridge, K. 2011. ‘From preposition to purposive to infinitival marker: The Pennsylvania German fer … zu construction’, in Putnam, M. T. (ed.), Studies on German-language islands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 385–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, K., Payne, J. and Chisarik, E. 1999. ‘On the justification for functional categories in LFG’, in Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/LFG4-1999/.Google Scholar

Börjars, K., Harries, P. and Vincent, N. 2016. ‘Growing syntax: The development of a DP in North Germanic’, Language 92: e1–e37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, K. and Vincent, N. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and directionality’, in Heine, and Narrog, (eds.), pp. 163–76.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2008. ‘What will you have, DP or NP?’, in Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society meeting 37, vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 101–14.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2009. ‘More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages’, Studia Linguistica 63(2): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. and Wechsler, S. 2015. Lexical-functional syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butt, M. 2010. ‘The light verb jungle: Still hacking away’, in Amberber, M., Baker, B. and Harvey, M. (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure. Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Dahl, Ö. 2001. ‘Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions’, RASK – Internationalt Tidsskrift for Sprog og Kommunikation 14: 91–134.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, M. 2001. Lexical functional grammar. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Francis, E. J. and. Michaelis, L. A. 2003. ‘Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory’, in Francis, E. J. and Michaelis, L. A. (eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Harries, P. 2015. ‘The distribution of definiteness markers and the growth of syntactic structure from Old Norse to Modern Faroese’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hinterhölzl, R. and Petrova, S. (eds.) 2009. Information structure and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jøhndal, M. 2012. ‘Non-finiteness in Latin’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1995. ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Roberts, I. and Battye, A. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 140–67.Google Scholar

Korn, A. 2011. ‘Pronouns as verbs, verbs as pronouns: Demonstratives and the copula in Iranian’, in Korn, A., Haig, G., Karimi, S. and Samvelian, P. (eds.), Topics in Iranian linguistics. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, pp. 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroeger, P. R. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Lander, E. and Haegeman, L. 2013. ‘ON as an NP language, with observations on the common Norse and Northwest Germanic Runic inscriptions’, Transactions of the Philological Society 111: 1–40.Google Scholar

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

Li, Ch. N. and Thompson, S.A. 1977. ‘A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes’, in Li, Ch. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 419–45.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, R. and Sadler, L. 2007. ‘Verbless clauses: Revealing the structure within’, in Zaenen, A. (ed.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 139–60.Google Scholar

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

Sag, I., Boas, H. and Kay, P. 2012. ‘Introducing sign-based construction grammar’, in Boas, H. and Sag, I. (eds.), Sign-Based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Simpson, A. and Wu, Z. 2002. ‘From D to T: Determiner incorporation and the creation of tense’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 169–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toivonen, I. 2003. Non-projecting words: A case study of Swedish particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van de Velde, F. 2010. ‘The emergence of the determiner in the Dutch NP’, Linguistics 48: 263–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

van Gelderen, E. 2014. ‘Generative syntax and language change’, in Bowern, C. and Evans, B. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 326–42.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 2001. ‘LFG as a model of syntactic change’, in Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 2016. ‘Causatives in Latin and Romance’, in Adams, J. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Early and late Latin: Continuity or change? Cambridge University Press, pp. 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. N. 2013. Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, J. 2003. ‘Differential object marking: iconicity vs economy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristar, A. R. 1991. ‘On diachronic sources and synchronic patterns: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals’, Language 67: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. C. and McCloskey, J. 2007. ‘On the relation of typology to theoretical syntax’, Linguistic Typology 11(1): 285–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1968. ‘Mutations of linguistic categories’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar

Bickel, B. 2007. ‘Typology in the 21^st century: Major current developments’, Linguistic Typology 11(1): 239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bubeník, V. 1998. A historical syntax of late middle Indo-Aryan (Apabrahṃśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. 1988. ‘The diachronic dimension in explanation’, in Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 350–79.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2006. ‘Language change and universals’, in Mairal, R. and Gil, J. (eds.), Linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–94.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2008. ‘Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation’, in Good, J. (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 108–21.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cennamo, M. 2008. ‘The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance’, in Eyþórsson, Þ. (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–42.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. 2008. ‘Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations’, Folia Linguistica 42: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cristofaro, S. 2011. ‘Language universals and linguistic knowledge’, in Song, J. J. (ed.), Handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford University Press, pp. 227–49.Google Scholar

Cristofaro, S. 2012. ‘Cognitive explanations, distributional evidence, and diachrony’, Studies in Language 36: 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cristofaro, S. 2014. ‘Competing motivations and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations?’, in MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford University Press, pp. 282–98.Google Scholar

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

Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L. and Mortelmans, T. (eds.) 2012. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeLancey, S. 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language 57: 626–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. ‘Ergativity’, Language 55: 59–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Dryer, M. 2006a. ‘Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory’, in Ameka, F., Dench, A. and Evans, N. (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207–34.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. 2006b. ‘Functionalism and the metalanguage – theory confusion’, in Libben, G. W. G., Priestly, T., Smyth, R. and Wang, S. (eds.), Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing. Taipei: Crane, pp. 27–59.Google Scholar

Du Bois, J. A. 1985. ‘Competing motivations’, in Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 343–66.Google Scholar

Garrett, A. 1990. ‘The origin of NP split ergativity’, Language 66: 261–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.) 2013. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gildea, S. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. and Shibatani, M. (eds.) 2009. Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neurocognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1963. ‘Some universals of language, with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language universals, with particular reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1978. ‘Diachrony, synchrony and language universals’, in Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. H. and Moravcsick, E. A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory. Stanford University Press, pp. 62–91.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1995. ‘The Diachronic typological approach’, in Shibatani, M. and Bynon, T. (eds.), Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 1983. ‘Iconic and economic motivation’, Language 59: 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, J. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Hawkins, J. A. 1990. ‘Seeking motives for change in typological variation’, in Croft, W., Denning, K. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Heine, B. 1997. Possession. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Hendery, R. 2012. Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hercus, L. 1982. The Bagandji language (Pacific Linguistics. Series B-67). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Holton, G. 2008. ‘The rise and fall of semantic alignment in Northern Halmahera, Indonesia’, in Donohue, M. and Wichmann, S. (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press, pp. 252–76.Google Scholar

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

König, C. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, C. and Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lord, C. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. and Moravcsik, E. (eds.) 2014. Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malchukov, A. 2008. ‘Split intransitives, experiencer objects and “transimpersonal” constructions: (Re-)establishing the connection’, in Donohue, M. and Wichmann, S. (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press, pp. 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maslova, E. 2000. ‘A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals’, Linguistic Typology 4: 307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGregor, W.B. 2006. ‘Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia)’, Lingua 116: 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGregor, W.B. 2008. ‘Indexicals as sources of case markers in Australian languages’, in Josephson, F. and Söhrman, I. (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Mithun, M. 1991. ‘Active/agentive case marking and its motivation’, Language 67: 510–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, M. 2003. ‘Functional perspectives on syntactic change’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 552–72.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. 2008. ‘The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking’, in Donohue, M. and Wichmann, S. (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford University Press, pp. 297–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, M. and Chafe, W. 1999. ‘What are S, A, and O?’, Studies in Language 23(3): 569–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. ‘On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns’, Lingua 45: 233–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Newmeyer, F. J. 2002. ‘Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally-based optimality theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. 2004. ‘Typological evidence and Universal Grammar’, Studies in Language 28: 526–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. 2005. Possible and probable languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Nichols, J. 2007. ‘What, if anything, is typology?’, Linguistic Typology 11(1): 231–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinkster, H. 1987. ‘The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin’, in Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramat, P. 1987. Linguistic typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Rude, N. 1991. ‘On the origin of the Nez Perce Ergative NP suffix’, International Journal of American Linguistics 57: 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rude, N. 1997. ‘On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian’, International Journal of American Linguistics 63: 113–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seoane, E. and Lopez-Couso, M.J. 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Song, J. J. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar

Stafford, R. 1967. An elementary Luo grammar. With vocabularies. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stroński, K. 2011. Synchronic and diachronic aspects of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznan: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R.B. 2005. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

van Gelderen, E., Barðdal, J. and Cennamo, M. (eds.) 2013. Argument structure in flux: The Naples-Capri papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verbeke, S. 2013. Alignment and ergativity in New Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verbeke, S. and De Cuypere, L. 2009. ‘The rise of ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the role of grammaticalization’, Folia Linguistica Historica 30: 1–24.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1982. ‘The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance’, in Vincent, N. and Harris, M. (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb. London: Croom Helm, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar

Viti, C. (ed.) 2015. Perspectives on historical syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yap, F. H., Grunow-Hårsta, K. and Wrona, Y. (eds.) 2011. Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Craig, C. G. 1977. Jacaltec: The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Fortescue, M., Jacobson, S. and Kaplan, L. 1994. Comparative Eskimo dictionary with Aleut cognates. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar

Frachtenberg, L. 1913. Coos texts (Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology l). Reprinted 1969, New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar

Frachtenberg, L. 1922. ‘Coos’, in Boas, F. (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, part 2 (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, pp. 297–429.Google Scholar

Garrett, A. 1990. ‘The origin of NP split ergativity’, Language 66: 261–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobs, M. 1939. ‘Coos narrative and ethnologic texts’, University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8(1): 1–126.Google Scholar

Jacobs, M. 1940. ‘Coos myth texts’, University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8(2): 127–360.Google Scholar

Jacobson, S. A. 1984. Yup’ik Eskimo Dictionary. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska, Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar

Larsen, T. and Norman, W. 1979. ‘Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar’, in Plank, F. (ed.), Ergativity. New York: Academic Press, pp. 347–70.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. 2005. ‘Ergativity and language contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coos’, Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 77–95.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. 2008. ‘The extension of dependency beyond the sentence’, Language 83: 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Silverstein, M. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112–71.Google Scholar

Suttles, W. 1990. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7: Northwest coast. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar

Young, R., Morgan, W. and Midgette, S. 1992. Analytical lexicon of Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Zenk, H. 1990a. ‘Siuslawans and Coosans’, in Suttles, (ed.), pp. 572–9.Google Scholar

Zenk, H. 1990b. ‘Alseans’, in Suttles, (ed.), pp. 568–71.Google Scholar