References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2023
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Optimal Linking GrammarA Theory of Morphosyntax, pp. 267 - 290Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 1998. Optimal questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.443–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikio, Ante, and Ylikoski, Jussi. 2016. The origin of the Finnic l-cases. Fenno-Ugrica Suecana Nova Series 15.59–158. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
Alderete, John, and Tupper, Paul. 2018. Connectionist approaches to generative phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. and Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, 360–390. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1994. Issues in the Syntax of Adverbs. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angantýsson, Ásgrímur. 2007. Verb-third in embedded clauses in Icelandic. Studia Linguistica 61.3.237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asarina, Alevtina (Alya). 2011. Case in Uyghur and Beyond. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. The perplexity of dat-nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24.1.47–70.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2002. ‘Oblique subjects’ in Icelandic and German. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70.61–99.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Eyþórsson, Þórhallur. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39.439–472.Google Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 1986. Subject, nominative and oblique case in Faroese. Scripta Islandica 37. 13–46.Google Scholar
Barnes, Michael. 1992. Faroese syntax – Achievements, goals and problems. In Louis-Jensen, Jonna and Poulsen, Jóhan H. W. (eds.), The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 7, 17–37. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17.347–354.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13.2.145–204.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan, and Holmes, Janet. 1990. New Zealand Ways of Speaking English. Clevedon & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine, Garbacz, Piotr, Heycock, Caroline and Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2009. On variation in Faroese verb placement. Nordlyd: NORMS Papers on Faroese 36.2.78–102.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, and Marcus, Gary. 2019. No integration without structured representations: Response to Pater. Language 95.1.e75–e86.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje, and de Swart, Peter. 2009. Definiteness and scrambling in Dutch: Where theory meets practice. NELS 38.113–124.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje, and de Swart, Peter. 2010. Scrambling in spoken Dutch: Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6.2.267–295.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders and Roberts, Ian. 2007. Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-Over-Final-Constraint (FOFC). In Bisetto, A. and Barbieri, Francesco (eds.), Proceedings of XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 86–105.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders and Roberts, Ian. 2008. Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. In Chang, C. B. and Haynie, H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th WCCFL, 96–104.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1983. Semantische und konzeptuelle Reprasentation lexikalischer Einheiten. In Růžička, and Motsch, Wolfgang (eds.), Untersuchungen zur Semantik, 61–99. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1986. On the nature of semantic form in natural language. In Klix, Friedhart and Hagendorf, Herbert (eds.), Human Memory and Cognitive Capabilities, Part B, 765–783. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David and Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the Interactions between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32.45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Pater, Joe. 2016. Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. In McCarthy, John J. and Pater, Joe (eds.), Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism, 389–434. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit (ed.). 1986. The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. San Francisco: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, and Donohue, Mark. 2000. Much ado about nothing: Features and zeros in Germanic noun phrases. Studia Linguistica 54.3.309–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Uyechi, Linda Ann and Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, 161–184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41.287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. Double object constructions and prepositional dative constructions are distinct: A reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012. Linguistic Inquiry 49.1.123–150.Google Scholar
Burnett, Heather. 2017. Sociolinguistic interaction and identity construction: The view from game-theoretic pragmatics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21.2.238–271.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won. 2001. Binding and discourse prominence: Reconstruction in ‘focus’ scrambling. In Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality–Theoretic Syntax, 143–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick (eds.). 2001. Connectionist Psycholinguistics. Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Christensen, Rune H. B. 2018. Ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2018.4-19. Available at www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/, accessed on 8/5/18.Google Scholar
Chung, C. 1998. Argument composition and long-distance scrambling in Korean: An extension of the complex predicate analysis. In Hinrichs, Erhard, Kathol, Andreas and Nakazawa, Tsuneko (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 30, 159–220. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1998. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Brady. 2012. Subjects in early English: Syntactic change as gradual constraint reranking. In Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John and Garrett, Andrew (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, 256–274. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. A typology of subject and object markers in African languages. In Voeltz, F. K. Erhard (ed.), Studies in African Linguistic Typology, 43–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella and Sridhar, Shikaripur N.. 1978. On the acquisition of subjecthood. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8.42–71.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini, and Sharma, Devyani. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10.369–418.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond D. 1977. Word order universals and the existence of OVS languages. Linguistic Inquiry 8.3.590–599.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly, and Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3.2.123–176.Google Scholar
van der Does, Jaap, and de Hoop, Helen. 1998. Type-shifting and scrambled definites. Journal of Semantics 15.393–416.Google Scholar
Donohue, Cathryn. 2004. Morphology Matters: Case Licensing in Basque. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Polar questions. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at wals.info/chapter/116, accessed on 8/3/18.Google Scholar
Dunbar, Ewan. 2019. Generative grammar, neural networks, and the implementational mapping problem: Response to Pater. Language 95.1.e87–e98.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12.453–476.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. In Behre, Frank (ed.), Gothenburg Studies in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Engels, Eva, and Vikner, Sten. 2014. Scandinavian Object Shift and Optimality Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert, and Ćavar, Damir. 2001. Remarks on the economy of pronunciation. In Müller, Gereon and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Competition in Syntax, 107–150. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. 1972. Tense Marking in Black English. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fischer, Silke. 2006. Matrix unloaded: Binding in a local derivational approach. Linguistics 44.913–935.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert. 2004a. Restricting grammatical complexity. Cognitive Science 28.669–697.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert. 2004b. Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fritzenschaft, Agnes, Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira, Tracy, Rosmarie, and Winkler, Susanne. 1990. Wege zur komplexen syntax. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9.52–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Gaaf, W. 1904. The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. (Reprinted 1967, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.)Google Scholar
Galbraith, Daniel. 2013. Positional and Morphological Case in Faroese. Unpublished MPhil dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Galbraith, Daniel. 2017. Faroese and Icelandic syntactic survey data: Quirky case predicates, mono-and ditransitive passives, object shift and position of negative adverbs. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at purl.stanford.edu/nd533ns7207, accessed on 10/25/22.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders and Dahl, Östen (eds.), Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, 111–120. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Goodman, Noah D., and Frank, Michael C.. 2016. Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20.11.818–829.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Blooming-ton, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28.373–422.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Economy of structure in OT. Unpublished ms., Rutgers University. Rutgers Optimality Archive 434–0601.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1980. Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Labov, William (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2000. Adverb placement – Convergence of structure and licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26.95–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4.3–16.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi (eds.), MITWPL 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Han, Jiawei, Kamber, Micheline and Pei, Jian. 2012. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14.2.137–175.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36.85–125.Google Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar. 2007. Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75.2.244–285.Google Scholar
Hayes, Andrew F., and Krippendorff, Klaus. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1.77–89.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2017. Varieties of noisy harmonic grammar. In Karen, Jesney, O’Hara, Charlie, Smith, Caitlin and Walker, Rachel (eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce and Zuraw, Kie. 2013. OTSoft 2.5. Software package, accessible at www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Heck, Fabian, and Müller, Gereon. 2003. Derivational optimization of wh-movement. Linguistic Analysis 33.97–148.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, Sorace, Antonella, and Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 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
Heycock, Caroline, Sorace, Antonella, Hansen, Zakaris Svabo, Vikner, Sten and Wilson, Frances. 2012. Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese. Language 88.3.558–600.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Wallenberg, Joel C.. 2013. How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16.127–157.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29.127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1986. Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1997. The true nature of Holmberg’s Generalization. NELS 27.203–218.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1999. Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53.1–39.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, and Hróarsdóttir, Þorbjörg. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113.997–1019.Google Scholar
Hong, K.-S. 1991. Argument Selection and Case Marking in Korean. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Honti, L. 2006. Eräästä ugrilaisten kielten postpositioperäisestä kaasussuffiksien perheestä. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 91.81–91.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 2000. Optional scrambling and interpretation. In Bennis, Hans, Everaert, Martin and Reuland, Eric (eds.), Interface Strategies, 153–168. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 2003. Scrambling in Dutch: optionality and optimality. In Karimi, Simin (ed.), Word Order and Scrambling, 201–216. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 2009. Case in optimality theory. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 88–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39.565–587.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2001. An Optimality Theory analysis of agreement in Icelandic dat-nom constructions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 68.15–47.Google Scholar
Huang, James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15.531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James, and Roberts, Ian. 2016. Principles and parameters of Universal Grammar. In Roberts, Ian (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 307–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver A. 2013. Number of cases. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at wals.info/chapter/49, accessed on 6/19/18.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1981. X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Steven A. 1979. A Grammatical Sketch of Siberian Yupik Eskimo. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 1995. Topic, scrambling, and Aktionsart. In Kohlhof, Inga, Winkler, Susanne and Drubig, Hans Bernhard (eds.), Proceedings of the Göttingen Focus Workshop, 19–34. Tübingen: Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 ‘Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik’.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. Maximum Entropy models and Stochastic Optimality Theory. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, Holloway King, Tracy, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan and Manning, Chris (eds.), Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan, 467–479. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 1995. Sociolinguistic resources, individual identities, and public speech styles of Texas women. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 5.183–202.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1997–1998. Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 19–20:11–43.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd: NORMS Papers on Faroese 36.2.142–164.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli, and Eyþórsson, Þórhallur. 2005. Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28.223–245.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions: Tree adjoining grammars. In Dowty, David, Karttunen, Lauri and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives, 206–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., Levy, Leon S. and Takahashi, Masako. 1975. Tree adjunct grammars. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 10.1.136–163.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., and Schabes, Yves. 1991. Tree-adjoining grammars and lexicalized grammars. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science: Technical Report No. MSCIS91-22.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., and Schabes, Yves. 1997. Tree-adjoining grammars. In Rozenberg, Grzegorz and Salomaa, Arto (eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol. 3: Beyond Words, 69–123. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2011. Hixkaryana: The Derivation of Object Verb Subject Word Order. Master’s thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of subject. In Charles, Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 303–333. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott Fabius. 1998. Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2.69–99.Google Scholar
Kim, Soowon. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.255–284.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. The rise of positional licensing. In van Kemenade, Ans and Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2012. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John and Garrett, Andrew (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, 15–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2017. Typologies as fitness landscapes: Modeling word order change. Presentation at University of Oslo, Workshop on Variation and Change in the Scandinavian Verb Phrase, May 16, 2017.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 2010. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, and Ylikoski, Jussi. 2011. Remarks on the coding of Goal, Recipient and Vicinal Goal in European Uralic. In Kittilä, Seppo, Västi, Katja and Ylikoski, Jussi (eds.), Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, 29–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Michelson, Karin. 2015. Invariance in argument realization: The case of Iroquoian. Language 91.1–47.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1970. Estimating the reliability, systematic error, and random error of interval data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30.1.61–70.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1978. Reliability of binary attribute data. Biometrics 34.1.142–144.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989a. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1.199–244.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989b. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do
. In Fasold, Ralph and Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language Change and Variation, 133–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, Katharine, Denton, Jeanette, Knippen, Robert et al. (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki 1972. The categorical and thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9.153–185.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. The isolation of contextual styles. In Labov, William, Sociolinguistic Patterns, 70–109. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2011. Markedness and faithfulness constraints. In Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth and Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. III, ch. 63. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.335–391.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel. 1981. Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques 1. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lees, Aet. 2015. Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane and Vikner, Sten (eds.). 2001. Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Smolensky, Paul and Wilson, Colin. 1998. When is less more? Faithfulness and minimal links in wh-chains. In Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Daniel, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha and Pesetsky, David (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 249–289. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Lori, and Simpson, Jane. 1981. Quirky case and lexical representation of Icelandic verbs. Chicago Linguistic Society 17.185–196.Google Scholar
Li, Charles, and Thompson, Sandra. 1976. Subject and Topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and Topic, 459–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Linzen, Tal. 2019. What can linguistics and deep learning contribute to each other? Response to Pater. Language 95.1.e99–e108.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William B. 1977. An Introduction to Modern Faroese. Tórshavn: Føroya Skúlabókagrunnur.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 2007. Reverse engineering two word order generalizations. Presentation at GLOW in Asia VI: Parametric Syntax and Language Acquisition, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, December 27–29, 2007.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, Germán F. (ed.), Proceedings of ESCOL ’91, 234–253. Baltimore: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Marschner, Ian C. 2011. glm2: Fitting generalized linear models with convergence problems. The R Journal 3.2.12–15.Google Scholar
Marten, Lutz, and van der Wal, Jenneke. 2014. A typology of Bantu subject inversion. Linguistic Variation 14.2.318–368.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2011. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura W. and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31.57–84.Google Scholar
McCullagh, Peter. 1980. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 42.2.109–142.Google Scholar
McCulloch, Warren S., and Pitts, Walter. 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5.4.115–133.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, 107–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mikolov, Tomas, Chen, Kai, Corrado, Greg and Dean, Jeffrey. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Available at arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781, accessed on 5/6/19.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese: Syntax and Semantics 22. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, Julius M. E. and Suppes, Patrick (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2001. Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked. In Legendre, Geraldine, Grimshaw, Jane and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, 279–313. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2002. Harmonic alignment and the hierarchy of pronouns in German. In Simon, Horst and Wiese, Heike (eds.), Pronouns: Grammar and Representation, 205–232. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2009. Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. ‘Comparing Frameworks’ lectures, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics (OTS), September 24–26, 2009. Text available at home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/mu235.pdf, accessed on 8/5/18.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki. 2014. Endocentric Structuring of Projection-Free Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T., Bach, Emmon and Wheeler, Deirdre (eds.). 1988. Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Oinas, Felix J. 1961. The development of some postpositional cases in Balto-Finnic languages. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 123. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 2012. PPs without disguises: Reply to Bruening. Linguistic Inquiry 43.455–474.Google Scholar
Otani, Kazuyo, and Whitman, John. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22.345–358.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2000. Nonuniformity in English stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17.2.237–274.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33.999–1035.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2019. Generative linguistics and neural networks at 60: Foundation, friction and fusion. Language 95.1.e41–e74.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa, and Goldwater, Sharon. 2016. Statistical learning, inductive bias, and Bayesian inference in language acquisition. In Lidz, Jeffrey, Snyder, William and Pater, Joe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics, 664–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matthew. 1998. Predicate raising and ‘VOS’ order in Malagasy. In Paul, Ileana (ed.), The Structure of Malagasy, vol. 2. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 20.Google Scholar
Pearson, Matthew. 2005. The Malagasy subject/topic as an A’-element. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23.2.381–457.Google Scholar
Pedregosa, Fabian, Varoquaux, Gaël, Gramfort, Alexandre et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12.2825–2830.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 38.157–189. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Petersen, Hjalmar P. 2010. The Dynamics of Faroese–Danish Language Contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., Barton, Stephen and Shillcock, Richard. 1994. Unbounded dependencies, island constraints and processing complexity. In Clifton, Charles Jr , Frazier, Lyn and Rayner, Keith (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, 199–224. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20.3.365–424.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 1998. A syntax for adverbs. WECOL 27. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2019. A case for deep learning in semantics: Response to Pater. Language 95.1.e115–e124.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Citations from Rutgers Optimality Archive version [Aug. 2002], accessible at roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF.Google Scholar
Qing, Ciyang, and Cohn-Gordon, Reuben. 2018. Non-descriptive/use conditional meaning in Rational Speech Act models. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 23, September 5–7, 2018. Centre de Lingüística Teòrica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Austria: Vienna. www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44.129–167.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1995. Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? NOWELE 26.3–29.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1994. The Germanic Languages and the Full Paradigm: A Theory of V to I Raising. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, Frank. 1957. The perceptron: A perceiving and recognizing automaton. Project PARA, Report 85-460-1. Ithaca: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory.Google Scholar
Sadakane, Kumi, and Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. On the nature of the ‘dative’ particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33.5–33.Google Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. 1989. The Generalization of the Verb-Second Constraint in the History of Yiddish. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. 1992. Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10.4.595–640.Google Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. 1993. The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish. Language Variation and Change 5.257–283.Google Scholar
Savitch, Walter J. 1987. Context-sensitive grammar and natural language syntax. In Savitch, Walter J., Bach, Emmon, Marsh, William and Safran-Naveh, Gila (eds.), The Formal Complexity of Natural Language, 358–368. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Scannell, Kevin. 2011. Corpus of Faroese-Language Blogs. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at purl.stanford.edu/qt590wf1460.Google Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 1998. Investigating ‘self-conscious’ speech: The performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in Society 27.53–83.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2001. Structure, Alignment and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. Rise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic Linguistics 4:187–211.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle, Biberauer, Theresa, Roberts, Ian and Holmberg, Anders. 2017. The Final-Over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Verbal person marking. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at wals.info/chapter/102, accessed on 6/19/18.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9.327–363.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57.1–46.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1997. Öðruvísi frumlög. In Agnarsdóttir, Anna and Tulinius, Torfi (eds.), Milli himins og jarðar. Maður, guð og menning í hnotskurn hugvísinda, 299–306. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology, Studia Typologica 6, 61–103. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Holmberg, Anders. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention. In D’Alessandro, Roberta, Fischer, Susann and Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar H. (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23.193–229.Google Scholar
Sinor, D. (ed.). 1988. The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences. Handbuch der Orientalistik 8: Handbook of Uralic Studies 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1986. Information processing in dynamical systems: foundations of Harmony Theory. In Rumelhart, David E. and McClelland, James L. (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 1, 194–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 27.4.720–731.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul, and Legendre, Geraldine. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar (Cognitive Architecture), vol. 1. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3.425–449.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Ásta. 1982. Þágufallssýki: Breytingar á fallnotkun í frumlagssæti ópersónulegra setninga. Íslenskt mál 4.19–62.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the Extended Projection Principle, 199–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tada, Hiroaki. 1992. Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14.91–108.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2010. Case, phases, and nominative/accusative conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19.319–355.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 307–327. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 2000. Object shift and scrambling. In Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 2010. Predictable and unpredictable sources of variable verb and adverb placement in Scandinavian. Lingua 120.1062–1088.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 2013. Full NP object shift: The Old Norse puzzle and the Faroese puzzle revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36.2.153–186.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 2016. There is no ‘Icelandic A and B’ nor ‘Faroese 1 and 2’. Presentation delivered at GLAC 22, Reykjavík, 5/21/16.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., Jacobsen, Jógvan í Lon and Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 2004. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar, 1st ed. Reykjavík and Tórshavn: University of Iceland and University of the Faroe Islands.Google Scholar
Þráinsson, Höskuldur, Petersen, Hjalmar P., Jacobsen, Jógvan í Lon and Hansen, Zakaris Svabo. 2012. Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar, 2nd ed. Reykjavík and Tórshavn: University of Iceland and University of the Faroe Islands.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rips, Lance J. and Rasinski, Kenneth. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2002. Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution of subject types. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Subjects, Expletives, and the Extended Projection Principle, 43–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008 [1977]. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and Control’, April 17, 1977. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 3–15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, Joel C. 2013. Scrambling, LF, and phrase structure change in Yiddish. Lingua 133.289–318.Google Scholar
Werbos, Paul J. 1974. Beyond Regression: New Tools for Prediction and Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Case patterns. In Legendre, Geraldine, Grimshaw, Jane and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, 509–543. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2007. Case locality: Pure domains and object shift. Lingua 117.1591–1616.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28.27–68.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2002. Argument linking types approached from the perspective of LDG. In Suzuki, Hidekazu (ed.), Report of the Special Research Project for the Typological Investigation of Languages and Cultures of the East and West 2001, Part II, 777–799. University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2008. The force of lexical case: German and Icelandic compared. In Hanson, Kristin and Inkelas, Sharon (eds.), The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky, 587–620. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2012. Lexical decomposition in grammar. In Werning, Markus, Hinzen, Wolfram and Machery, Edouard (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, 307–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2014. Variations of double nominative in Korean and Japanese. In Gerland, Doris, Horn, Christian, Latrouite, Anja and Ortmann, Albert (eds.), Meaning and Grammar of Nouns and Verbs, 339–372. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter, and Lakämper, Renate. 2001. On the interaction of structural and semantic case. Lingua 111.277–418.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2000. Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change 12.231–250.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63.217–250.Google Scholar
Yoo, Eun-Jung. 2003. Case marking in Korean auxiliary verb constructions. In Kim, Jong-Bok and Wechsler, Stephen (eds.), The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on HPSG, 413–438. Stanford: CSLI Press.Google Scholar
Yoon, J.-H. 2004. Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Bhaskararao, Peri and Subbarao, Karumuri V. (eds.), Non-Nominative Subjects, vol. 2, 265–314. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan and Þráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.441–483.Google Scholar
Zobl, Helmut, and Liceras, Juana M.. 2005. Competing grammars and parametric shifts in second language acquisition and the history of English and Spanish. In Bamman, David, Magnitskaia, Tatiana and Zaller, Colleen (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar