Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 3–32

Historical syntax

Problems, materials, methods, hypotheses

 | University of Zurich
Published online: 29 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.01vit
References (173)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, Robert M.W. (eds). 2001. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Li (ed.), 317-364.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D. & Gray, Russell D. 2006. How old is the Indo-European language family? Illumination or more moths to the flame. In Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds), 91-109. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2013. Contact Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1977. Analogy. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter & Matras, Yaron (eds). 2013. Contact Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldi, Philip (ed.). 1990. Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Lund.
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2012. Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds), 257-308. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Batllori, Montserrat, Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa, Picallo, Carmen & Roca, Francesc. 2005. Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 1995. The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belardi, Walter. 2002. L'etimologia nella storia della cultura occidentale. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Bertram, Georg. 2011. Sprachphilosophie zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2013. The life, growth, and death of languages. In L’interface langage-cognition, Actes du 19e Congrès International des Linguistes, Genève, 22-27 juillet 2013, Stephen Anderson, Jacques Moeschler & Fabienne Reboul ( eds), 59-81. Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1925. Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Good (ed.), 108-121.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23: 113-161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Harris, Alice. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38: 599-618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1977. The evolution of third person verb agreement in the Iroquoian languages. In Li (ed.), 317-364.Google Scholar
Crespo, Emilio & García Ramón, José Luis (eds). 1997. Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft; Madrid, 21-24 de septiembre de 1994. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Crisma, Paola & Longobardi, Giuseppe (eds). 2009. Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, Kleinschmidt, Dave, Smith, Eric & Jaeger, Florian. 2011. Greenbergian universals, diachrony and statistical analyses. Linguistic Typology 15: 433-453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curd, Martib, Cover, Jan & Pincock, Christopher (eds). 20132. Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues. New York NY: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1878. Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Śatapathabrāhmaṇa dargestellt [Syntaktische Forschungen 3]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1879. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 4]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1888. Altindische Syntax [Syntaktische Forschungen 5]. Halle: Buchhandlung des Weisenhauses.Google Scholar
. 1893-1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Devine, Andrew & Stephens, Laurence. 1999. Discontinuous Syntax. Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorian, Nancy. 1993. Internally and externally motivated change in language contact settings: Doubts about dichotomy. In Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives, Charles Jones (ed.), 131-155. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Terrill, Angela, Reesink, Ger, Foley, Robert & Levinson, Stephen. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Levinson, Stephen, Lindström, Eva, Reesink, Ger & Terrill, Angela. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language 84: 710-759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark & Ross, Malcolm (eds). 1996. The Comparative Method Reviewed. Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore, Kruskal, Joseph & Black, Paul. 1992. An Indoeuropean Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment [Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82, Part 5]. Philadelphia PA: The American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Embleton, Sheila. 1986. Statistics in Historical Linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan. 1990. Syntactic Change: Towards a Theory of Historical Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Goldbach, Maria (eds). 2008. Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 302]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella & Lühr, Rosemarie (eds). 2010. Diachronic Studies on Information Structure. Language Acquisition and Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster (eds), 35-55. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds). 2004. Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1984. Historical Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin. 2003. An approach to semantic change. In Joseph & Janda (eds), 648-666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction. An Introduction to Theory and Method. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2006. Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology. In Phylogenetic Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds), 139-151. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
. 2012. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Jonas, Whitman & Garrett (eds), 52-72.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Hopper, Paul. (eds). 1998. The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara, Guardiano, Cristina & Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 109-142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Anna. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff (ed.). 2008. Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell & Atkinson, Quentin. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426: 435-439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1870-18982. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Guardiano, Cristina & Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2005. Parametric comparison and language taxonomy. In Batllori, Picallo & Roca (eds), 149-174.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1993. The Language Builder. An Essay on the Human Signature in Linguistic Morphogenesis [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 94]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Good (ed.), 54-76.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Shelly P. 2003. On the limits of the comparative method. In Joseph & Janda (eds), 213-243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, Charles & Weiss, Paul (eds). 1931-1958. Peirce, Collected Papers. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Complexity and Efficiency in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph & Janda (eds), 575-601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2003. Contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27: 529-572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Bubenik, Vit. 2006. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 280]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Szantyr, Anton. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell (ed.). 1974. Studies in the History of Linguistics. Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 265-340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard & Joseph, Brian. 2003. Introduction: On language, change, and language change – Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph & Janda (eds), 1-180. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, Robert. 1976. Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In Current Progress in Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, William M. Christie, 1-15. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Jonas, Diane, Whitman, John & Garrett, Andrew (eds). 2012. Grammatical Change. Origins, Natures, Outcomes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2001. Is there such a thing as ‘grammaticalization’? Language Sciences 23: 163-186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization. In Fischer, Norde & Perridon (eds), 45-71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. Studies in Language 37: 675-691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian & Janda, Richard (eds). 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Joshua. 2010. Etymology. In The Classical Tradition, Anthony Crafton, Glenn Most & Salvatore Settis (eds). Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; Change results in typological generalizations. In Good (ed.), 23-53.Google Scholar
. 2012 Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, Whitman & Garrett (eds), 15-51.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. On the reanalysis of verbs as prepositions. In Prepositions, Gisa Rauh (ed.), 109-125. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1992. Categorial reanalysis: The case of deverbal preposition. Linguistics 30: 671-698.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1991. The pragmatics-semantics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott & Heine (eds), 189-218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Vezzosi, Letizia. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 213–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 699-730. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1945. La nature des procès dits analogiques. Acta Linguistica 5: 15-37.Google Scholar
. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. II: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Li (ed.), 57-140.Google Scholar
. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2009. Causes and effects of substratum, superstratum and adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages. Senri Ethnological Studies 75: 227-237.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Remarks on (uni)directionality. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 207-227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic Sketch, Vol. 1 [Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48]. Cologne: University of Cologne.Google Scholar
. 2002. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, revised version [Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9]. Erfurt: University of Erfurt.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1976. From topic to subject in Indo-European. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 447-456. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Pre-Indo-European [Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 41]. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2009. Sprachphilosophie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2002a. Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. Myths and the prehistory of grammar. Journal of Linguistics 38: 619-626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002c. More myths. Journal of Linguistics 38: 113-136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2003. On parameters and parameter theory. In Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive, Elisabeth Stark & Ulrich Wandrusza (eds), 273-290. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe & Guardiano, Cristina. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119: 1679-1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds). 2008. Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 76]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In A Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubnik (eds), 212-229. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1958. Tendences générales des changements analogiques, Lingua 7: 298-325; 387-420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. Laws of analogy. In Historical Morphology, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 283-288. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan, van Gijn, Rick, Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2014. Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences: An overview. In Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences [Typological Studies in Language 105], Rick van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds), 1-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April & McMahon, Robert. 2005. Language Classification by Numbers. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistic historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
. 1931. Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 32: 194-203.Google Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand. 2008. Reconstructing complex structures: A typological perspective. In Ferraresi & Goldbach (eds), 97-119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius & Karlsson, Fred (eds). 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miklosich, Franz. 1874. Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen. Wien: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. Levels of linguistic structure and the rate of change. In Fisiak (ed.), 301-332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay, Ringe, Donald & Warnow, Tandy. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81: 382–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newen, Albert & Schrenk, Markus. 2008. Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 187-229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okasha, Samir. 2002. Philosophy of Science. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 19205. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 2003. Variationist approaches to syntactic change. In Joseph & Janda (eds), 509-528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pires, Acrisio & Thomason, Sarah. 2008. How much syntactic reconstruction is possible? In Ferraresi & Goldbach (eds), 27-72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polomé, Edgar & Winter, Werner (eds). 1992. Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan. 1960. The present state of laryngeal studies. In Evidence for Laryngals, Werner Winter (ed.), 1-12. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Rankin, Robert. 2003. The comparative method. In Joseph & Janda (eds), 183-212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, Colin, McMahon, April & Trask, Robert (eds). 2000. Time Depth in Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Rexovà, Katerina, Frynta, Daniel & Zrzavý, Jan. 2003. Cladistic analysis of languages: The Indo-European classification based on lexico-statistical data. Cladistics 19: 120–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald, Warnow, Tandy & Taylor, Ann. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 59–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald & Eska, Joseph. 2013. Historical Linguistics. Towards a Twenty-first Century Reintegration. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1981. The Transparency Principle: What it is and why it doesn’t work. Lingua 55: 277-300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik, Band 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2011. Language Universals and Linguistic Complexity: Three Case Studies in Core Argument Marking. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Speyer, Augustin. 2007. Die Bedeutung der Centering Theory für Fragen der Vorfeldbesetzung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 26: 83-115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Jacob. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden.Google Scholar
. 1896. Vedische und Sanskrit Syntax. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stathi, Ekaterina, Gehweiler, Elke & König, Ekkehard (eds). 2010. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues [Studies in Language Companion Series 119]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1951. Diffusional cumulation and archaic residue as historical explanations. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7: 1-21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah & Kaufmann, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li (ed.), 141-180.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2004. What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Studies in Language 28: 642–645 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vols. I-II [Typological Studies in Language 19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vendryes, Joseph. 1955. Sur l’étymologie croisé. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 51: 1-8.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1997. The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 149-169. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2015. Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der alten indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1926-1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction, Diachronica 30: 95–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1964. Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Linguists, Horace Lunt (ed.), 1035-1045. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax. Problems and pseudo-problems. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, April 22, 1976, Sanford Steever, Carol Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds), 305-326. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the Comparative Method? In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds). 44-63.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1977. Sprachen in Kontakt. Ergebnisse und Probleme der Zweisprachigkeitsforschung. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1984. Reconstructional comparative linguistics and the reconstruction of the syntax of undocumented stages in the development of languages and language families. In Fisiak (ed.), 613-625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipser, Katharina. 2012. Spracherwerb und syntaktischer Wandel. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Carling, Gerd & Chundra Cathcart
2021. Evolutionary dynamics of Indo-European alignment patterns. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 358 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.