Allen, W. S. 1953. ‘Relationship in comparative linguistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 52: 52–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barðdal, J. 2013. ‘Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction’, in Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 438–57.Google Scholar

Barðdal, J. and Eythórsson, T. 2012. ‘Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the comparative method’, in Boas, H. C. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 257–308.Google Scholar

Bomhard, A. R. 2008. Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: comparative phonology, morphology, and vocabulary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 3rd edn. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. and Harris, A. C. 2002. ‘Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing “myths and the prehistory of grammars”’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clackson, J. 2007. Indo-European linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crowley, T. and Bowern, C. 2010. An introduction to historical linguistics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dimmendaal, G. J. 2011. Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dolgopolsky, A. 1998. The Nostratic macrofamily and linguistic palaeontology. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar

Durkheim, E. 1937. Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris.Google Scholar

Fox, A. 1995. Linguistic reconstruction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedrich, P. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of the meaningful elements (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 1). Butte, MT: Journal of Indo-European Studies.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 2000–2. Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Harris, A. C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns’, in Ferraresi, G. and Goldback, M. (eds.), Principles of Syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Hoenigswald, H. M. 1950. ‘The principal step in comparative grammar’, Language 26: 357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoenigswald, H. M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hoenigswald, H. M. 1963. ‘On the history of the comparative method’, Anthropological Linguistics 5: 1–11.Google Scholar

Jeffers, R., 1976. ‘Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction’, in Christie, W. M. Jr (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the second international conference on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

Kümmel, M. J. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar

Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. The Sounds of the world’s languages. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Lehmann, W. P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European yntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. W. 2002. ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meillet, A. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar

Meillet, A. 1967. The comparative method in historical linguistics, trans. Ford, Gordon B.. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. 1996. ‘The comparative method as heuristic’, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reynolds, E., West, P. and Coleman, J. 2000. ‘Proto-Indo-European laryngeals were vocalic’, Diachronica 17: 351–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Suthiwan, T. and Tadmor, U. 2009. ‘Loanwords in Thai’, in Haspelmath, M. and Tadmor, U. (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter pp. 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trask, L. and McColl Millar, R. 2007. Trask’s historical linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Google Scholar

Walkden, G. 2013. ‘The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction’, Diachronica 30: 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walker, L. D. 1980. ‘A note on historical linguistics and Marc Bloch’s comparative method’, History and Theory 19: 154–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watkins, C. 1976a. ‘Syntax and metrics in the Dipylon vase inscription’, in Davies, A. Morpurgo and Meid, W. (eds.), Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 431–41.Google Scholar

Watkins, C. 1976b. ‘Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems’, in Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. and Mufwene, S. S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, April 22, 1976. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 305–26.Google Scholar

Watkins, C. 1991. ‘Etymologies, equations and comparanda: Types and values, and criteria for judgment’, in Baldi, P. (ed.), Patterns of change, change of patterns: Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–82.Google Scholar

Watkins, C. 1995. How to kill a dragon: Aspects of Indo-European poetics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Willis, D. 2011. ‘Reconstructing last week’s weather: Syntactic reconstruction and Brythonic free relatives’, Journal of Linguistics 47: 407–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, S.R. 2014. ‘Morphological change’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 264–85.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barðdal, J. 2014. ‘Syntax and syntactic reconstruction’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 343–73.Google Scholar

Baxter, W. H. 2002. ‘Where does the ‘comparative method’ come from?’, in Cavoto, F. (ed.), The linguist’s linguist: A collection of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar

Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowern, C. and Evans, B. (eds.) 2014. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. Routledge: London.Google Scholar

Castilho, A. T. 2012. Nova gramática do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar

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

Collé, C. 1974. ‘La vérité dans le vin, ou les désagrémens de la galanterie’, in Truchet, J. (ed.), Théâtre du XVIIIe siècle (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 599–655.Google Scholar

Corbin, D. 1987. La morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. 1971. ‘Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 5–22.Google Scholar

Dufter, A. 2013. ‘Zur Geschichte der ne-Absenz in der neufranzösischen Satznegation’, in Fesenmeier, L., Grutschus, A. and Patzelt, C. (eds.), L’absence au niveau syntagmatique. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, pp. 131–58.Google Scholar

Ferraresi, G. and Goldbach, M. (eds.) 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, A. 1995. Construction: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. and Zanuttini, R. 1991. ‘Negative heads and the Neg-criterion’, The Linguistic Review 8: 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, A. C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax’, in Ferraresi, and Goldbach, (eds.), pp. 73–95.Google Scholar

Joseph, B. D. 2010. ‘Internal reconstruction’, in Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The continuum companion to historical linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 52–58.Google Scholar

Koch, H. 2014. ‘Morphological reconstruction’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 286–307.Google Scholar

Lühr, R. 2008. ‘Competitive Indo-European syntax’, in Ferraresi, and Goldbach, (eds.), pp. 121–59.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1969. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge, 3rd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Ringe, D. 2003. ‘Internal reconstruction’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 244–61.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1982. ‘Negation, wh-movement and the null subject parameter’, in Rizzi, L., Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 117–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rohlfs, G. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. II: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar

Uth, M. 2011. Französische Ereignisnominalisierungen. Abstrakte Bedeutung und regelhafte Wortbildung. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uth, M. 2012. ‘The lexicalist hypothesis and the semantics of event nominalization suffixes’, in Gaglia, S. and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds.), Inflection and word formation in Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 347–67.Google Scholar

Bailey, C.-J. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bean, M. C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

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

Blythe, R. and Croft, W. 2012. ‘S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change’, Language 88: 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H. 1998. ‘Two heads aren’t always better than one’, Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1951. ‘A mathematical model for simple learning’, Psychological Review 58: 313–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1958. Stochastic models for learning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Canale, W. M. 1978. ‘Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

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

Cukor-Avila, P. 2002. ‘She say, she go, she be like: Verbs of quotation over time in African American Vernacular English’, American Speech 77: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danchev, A. 1991. ‘Language change typology and some aspects of the SVO development in English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar

Durham, M., Haddican, B., Zweig, E., Johnson, D., Baker, Z., Cockeram, D., Danks, E. and Tyler, L. 2012. ‘Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like’, Journal of English Linguistics 40: 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ecay, A. 2015. ‘Construction and lexical class effects in the history of do-support’, presentation at DiGS17, Reykjavík, Iceland, 29–31 May 2015.Google Scholar

Ellegård, A. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Falk, C. 1993. ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Haeberli, E. and Pintzuk, S. 2011. ‘Verb (projection) raising in Old English’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 219–38.Google Scholar

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

Heycock, C., Sorace, A. and Hansen, Z.S. 2010. ‘V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohonen, V. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 A.D.: A quantitative study of word order in context. Meddelanden Fran Stiftelsens for Äbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, no. 38. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar

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

Kroch, A. S. 1989b. ‘Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do’, in Fasold, R. W. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 132–72.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2: 180–201.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. S. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699–729.Google Scholar

Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Delfs, L. 2004. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Diertani, A. 2010. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Lieber, R. 1979. ‘The English passive: An argument for historical rule stability’, Linguistic Inquiry 10: 667–88.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. W. 1981. ‘Explaining syntactic change’, in Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. W. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 207–40.Google Scholar

Los, B. 2009. ‘The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English’, English Language and Linguistics 13(1): 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, B. 1979. ‘F. Th. Visser, An historical syntax of the English language: Some caveats concerning Old English’, English Studies 60: 537–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pérez Lorido, R. 2009. ‘Reconsidering the role of syntactic “heaviness” in Old English split coordination’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 45.1: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Pintzuk, S. and Plug, L. 2002. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry (YCOEP). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang18/pcorpus.html).Google Scholar

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

Platzack, C. 1988. ‘The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses’, in Fekete, D. and Laubitz, Z. (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, pp. 215–38.Google Scholar

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

Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop (Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russom, J. H. 1982. ‘An examination of the evidence for OE indirect passives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 677–80.Google Scholar

Santorini, B. 1993. ‘The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish’, Language Variation and Change 5: 257–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sprouse, A. R. and Vance, B. S. 1999. ‘An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance languages’, in DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–83.Google Scholar

Stockwell, R. 1977. ‘Motivations for exbraciation in Old English’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stockwell, R. and Minkova, D. 1991. ‘Subordination and word order change in the history of English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 367–408.Google Scholar

Sundquist, J. D. 2002. ‘Morphosyntactic change in the history of the Mainland Scandinavian languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Sundquist, J. D. 2003. ‘The rich agreement hypothesis and Early Modern Danish embedded-clause word order’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 233–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, S. A. and D’Arcy, A. 2009. ‘Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change’, Language 85(1): 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, A., Nurmi, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Nevalainen, T. 2006. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/PCEEC-manual/index.htm).Google Scholar

Taylor, A. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Special issue on aspects of OV and VO order in the history of English’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Beths, F. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edition (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YcoeHome1.htm).Google Scholar

van der Wurff, W. 1999. ‘Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: A word order parallel and its causes’, Lingua 109: 237–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Vikner, S. 1997. ‘V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, K. 2008. ‘Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish’, Probus 20: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Wallenberg, J., Ingason, A. K., Sigurðsson, E. F. and Rögnvaldsson, E. 2011. Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus (IcePaHC). Department of Linguistics, University of Iceland. Online publication, version 0.9. (www.linguist.is/icelandic_treebank).Google Scholar

Warner, A. 2004. ‘What drove DO?’, in Kay, C., Horobin, S. and Smith, J. (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–42.Google Scholar

Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar

Yang, C. 2000. ‘Internal and external forces in language change’, Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. and Stavrou, M. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. C. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) 2001. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbançon, F. G., Evans, S.N., Nakhleh, L., Ringe, D. and Warnow, T. 2013. ‘An experimental study comparing linguistic phylogenetic reconstruction methods’, Diachronica 30(2): 143–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernstein, J. 2001. ‘The DP hypothesis: Identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 536–61.Google Scholar

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

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

Boeckx, C. and Piattelli Palmarini, M. 2005. ‘Language as a natural object; Linguistics as a natural science’, The Linguistic Review 22(2–3): 447–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bortolussi, L., Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C. and Sgarro, A. 2011. ‘How many possible languages are there?’, in Bel-Enguix, G., Dahl, V. and Jiménez-López, M. D. (eds.), Biology, computation and linguistics. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 168–79.Google Scholar

Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Alekseyenko, A. V., Drummond, A. J., Gray, R. D., Suchard, M. A. and Atkinson, Q. D. 2012. ‘Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family’, Science 337: 957–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boyd, R., Bogerhoff-Mulder, M., Durham, W. H. and Richerson, P. J. 1997. ‘Are cultural phylogenies possible?’, in Weingart, P., Mitchell, S. D., Richerson, P. J. and Maasen, S. (eds.), Human by nature: Between biology and the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 355–86.Google Scholar

Braudel, F. 1985. La Mediterranée. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar

Cavalli Sforza, L. L. 2000. Genes, peoples, and languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cavalli Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. 1994. The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Cavalli Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P. and Mountain, J. 1988. ‘Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archeological and linguistic data’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 85: 6002–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. MS, MIT (published in 1975, New York: Plenum).Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

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

Clackson, J., Forster, P. and Renfrew, C. (eds.) 2004. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar

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

Corbett, G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Diamond, J. 1998. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, A.-M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.) 2011. The biolinguistic enterprise. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. 1998. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dunn, M., Terrill, A., Reesink, G., Foley, R. A. and Levinson, S. C. 2005. ‘Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history’, Science 309(5743): 2072–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dyen, I., Kruskal, J. B. and Black, P. 1992. ‘An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(5): 1–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embleton, S. 1986. Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. 2012. Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.5c. Distributed by the author. Department of Genetics, University of Washington.Google Scholar

Fitch, T. W. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J. D. 2001. ‘Setting syntactic parameters’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 730–67.Google Scholar

Ghomeshi, J., Paul, I. and Wiltschko, M. (eds.) 2009. Determiners: Universals and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics’, in Biberauer, T. (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–41.Google Scholar

Giorgi, A. and Giuseppe, L. 1991. The syntax of noun phrases: Configuration, parameters and empty categories. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gray, R. D. and Atkinson, Q. D. 2003. ‘Language tree divergences support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin’, Nature 426: 435–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

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

Greenberg, J. 2000. Indo-European and its closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic language family. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenhill, S. J. 2011. ‘Levenshtein distances fail to identify language relationships accurately’, Computational Linguistics 37: 689–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2005. ‘Parametric comparison and language taxonomy’, in Batllori, M., Hernanz, M.-Ll., Picallo, C. and Roca, F. (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric variation. Oxford University Press, pp. 149–74.Google Scholar

Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. 2016. ‘Parameter theory and parametric comparison’, in Roberts, I. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 377-401.Google Scholar

Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. Forthcoming. ‘Formal syntactic methods for establishing language phyogenies’, in Janda, R.D., Joseph, B.D. and Vance, B. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, Vol. II. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Guardiano, C., Michelioudakis, D., Ceolin, A., Irimia, M. A., Longobardi, G., Radkevich, N., Silvestri, G. and Sitaridou, I. 2016. ‘South by southeast: A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, T. W. 2002. ‘The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?’, Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heggarty, P. 2004. ‘Interdisciplinary indiscipline? Can phylogenetic methods meaningfully be applied to language data – and to dating language?’, in Clackson, , Forster, and Renfrew, (eds.), pp. 183–94.Google Scholar

Jäger, G. 2013. ‘Lexikostatik 2.0’, in Plewnia, A. and Witt, A. (eds.), Sprachverfall? Dynamik – Wandel – Variation. Jahrbuch 2013 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 197–216.Google Scholar

Jäger, G. 2015. ‘Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment’. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science 112(41): 12752–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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

Keenan, E. 1994. ‘Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. 2000. ‘An historical explanation of some binding theoretic facts in English’, unpublished MS, UCLA.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–54.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. and Paperno, D. (eds.) 2012. Handbook of quantifiers in natural languages. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koyrè, A. 1961. ‘Du monde de l’à peu près’ à l’univers de la precision’, in Etudes d’histoire de la pensée philosophique. Paris: Colin, pp. 311–29.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Lohr, M. 1998. ‘Methods for the genetic classification of languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 1994. ‘Reference and proper names’, Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609–65.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 1996. ‘The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics 5, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2001a. ‘How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names’, Natural Language Semantics 9: 335–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Longobardi, G. 2003. ‘Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 101–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2005. ‘A minimalist program for parametric linguistics?’, in Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies for Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 407–14.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters’, in Klinge, A. and Müller, H. Høeg (eds.), Essays on nominal determination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2012. ‘Convergence in parametric phylogenies: Homoplasy or principled explanation?’, in Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F. and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter theory and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 304–19.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C. 2009. ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’, Lingua 119(11): 1679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longobardi, G., Guardiano, C., Silvestri, G., Boattini, A. and Ceolin, A. 2013. ‘Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages’, Journal of Historical Linguistics 3: 122–52.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G., Ghirotto, S., Guardiano, C., Tassi, F., Benazzo, A., Ceolin, A. and Barbujani, G. 2015. ‘Across language families: Genome diversity mirrors linguistic variation within Europe’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 157: 630–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longobardi, G., Ceolin, A., Bortolussi, L., Guardiano, C., Irimia, M. A., Michelioudakis, D., Radkevich, N. and Sgarro, A. 2016a. ‘Mathematical modeling of grammatical diversity supports the historical reality of formal syntax’, in Bentz, C., Jäger, G. and Yanovich, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the Leidon Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. University of Tubingen, online publication system, https://publikationen.unituebingen.do/xmlui/handle/10900/68558.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G., Ceolin, A., Ecay, A., Ghirotto, S., Guardiano, C., Irimia, M. A., Michelioudakis, D., Radkevic, N., Luiselli, D., Pettener, D. and Barbujani, G. 2016b. ‘Formal linguistics as a cue to demographic history’, Journal of Anthropological Sciences 94: 1–10..Google ScholarPubMed

Mantel, N. 1967. ‘The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach’, Cancer Research 27: 209–20.Google Scholar

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

McMahon, A. 2010. ‘Computational models and language contact’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 31–47.Google Scholar

McMahon, A. and McMahon, R. 2003. ‘Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classifying’, Transaction of the Philological Society 101(1): 7–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahon, A. and McMahon, R. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Ringe, D. and Evans, S. N. 2005. ‘A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an IE dataset’, Transactions of the Philological Society 3(2): 171–92.Google Scholar

Nerbonne, J. and Kretzschmar, W. 2003. ‘Introducing computational methods in dialectometry’, in Nerbonne, J. and Kretzschmar, W. (eds.), Computational methods in dialectometry (special issue of Computers and the Humanities 37(3)), pp. 245–55.Google Scholar

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

Nichols, J. 1996. ‘The comparative method as heuristic’, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (eds.), The comparative method reviewed: Regularity and irregularity in language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Novembre, J., Johnson, T., Bryc, K., Kutalik, Z., Boyko, A. R., Auton, A., Indap, A., King, K. S., Bergmann, S., Nelson, M. R., Stephens, M. and Bustamante, C. D. 2008. ‘Genes mirror geography within Europe’, Nature 456: 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piattelli Palmarini, M. 1989. ‘Evolution, selection and cognition: From “learning” to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language’, Cognition 31: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plank, F. (ed.) 2003. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 1992. ‘Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity’, Man 27(3): 445–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Ringe, D. 1996. ‘The mathematics of Amerind’, Diachronica 13: 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ringe, D., Warnow, T. and Taylor, A. 2002. ‘Indo-European and computational cladistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1): 59–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 1998. ‘Review of Harris and Campbell 1995’, Romance Philology 51: 363–70.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2007. ‘The mystery of the overlooked discipline: Modern syntactic theory and cognitive science’, available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001611.Google Scholar

Sihler, A. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sokal, R. R. 1988. ‘Genetic, geographic, and linguistic distances in Europe’, PNAS 85: 1722–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Spruit, M. R. 2008. Quantitative perspectives on syntactic variation in Dutch dialects. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Thomason, S. G. and Kaufmann, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Cort, T. 2001. ‘Computational evolutionary linguistics: Tree-based models of language change’, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvey Mudd College, Pomona, CA.Google Scholar

Warnow, T., Evans, S. N., Ringe, D. and Nakhleh, L. 2004. ‘Stochastic models of language evolution and an application to the Indo-European family of languages’, in Clackson, , Forster, and Renfrew, (eds.), n.p. (available at www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/evans/659.pdf).Google Scholar