Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Historical Syntax
Edited by Carlotta Viti
[Studies in Language Companion Series 169] 2015
► pp. 1–32

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 24 july 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.