Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) 2001. A real diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, C. L. [1977] 1980. Topics in diachronic English syntax. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts 1977; published New York: Garland, 1980.Google Scholar

Andersen, H. 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. ‘Relativization on subjects’, in Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gill, D. and Comrie, B. (eds.), The world atlas of linguistic structures (WALS). Oxford University Press, pp. 494–7.Google Scholar

Gast, V. and van der Auwera, J. 2012. ‘What is “contact-induced grammaticalization”? Evidence from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean Languages’, in Wiemer, , Wälchli, and Hansen, (eds.), pp. 381–426.Google Scholar

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

Harris, M. 1978. The evolution of French syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Harris, M. 1984. ‘On the strengths and weaknesses of a typological approach to historical syntax’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 183–98.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2001. ‘The European linguistic area: Standard Average European’, in Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. II (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20.2). New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1492–510.Google Scholar

Heath, J. 1978. Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land (Australian Aboriginal Studies Research and Regional Studies 13). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2003. ‘On contact-induced grammaticalization’, Studies in Language 27(3): 529–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2008. ‘Constraints on contact-induced linguistic change’, Journal of Language Contact – THEMA 2: 57–90 (www.jlc-journal.org).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johanson, L. 2002. ‘Contact-induced linguistic change in a code-copying framework’, in Jones, M. C. and Esch, E. (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keesing, R. M. 1991. ‘Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin’, in Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 315–42.Google Scholar

Kocur, J. 2005. ‘Entwicklung der WH-Relativpronomen im Englischen und Polnischen: Ein Vergleich’, unpublished MA thesis, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

Kuteva, T. 1999. ‘Languages and societies: The “punctuated equilibrium” model of language development’, Language and Communication 19: 213–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuteva, T. 2001. ‘Diachronic stability of grammatical categories and areal grammaticalization’, General Linguistics 38: 109–32.Google Scholar

Kuteva, T. 2008. ‘On the “frills” of grammaticalization’, in López-Couso, M. J. and Seoane, E. (eds.), in collaboration with Fanego, T., Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuteva, T. 2013. ‘Sentence-final what in Singapore English’, paper presented at the Research Colloquium at Institut du Monde Anglophone, Université Sorbonne-Nouvelle Paris 3, Paris, France, May 2013.Google Scholar

Kuteva, T. and Comrie, B. 2005. ‘The typology of relative clause formation in African languages’, in Voeltz, E. (ed.), African Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kuteva, T. and Heine, B. 2010. ‘Converging grammaticalization processes in Europe: Towards an explanation’, in Hinrichs, U. (ed.), Das Handbuch der Eurolinguistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 531–52.Google Scholar

Kuteva, T. and Heine, B. 2012. ‘An integrative model of grammaticalization’, in Wiemer, , Wälchli, and Hansen, (eds.), pp. 159–98.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 59–139.Google Scholar

Lehmann, W. 1973. ‘A structural principle of language and its implications’, Language 49: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ledgeway, A. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization from Latin to Romance’, in Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 719–28.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters: arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Matras, Y. 1996. ‘Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romanes’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(1): 60–78.Google Scholar

Matras, Y. 1998. ‘Convergent development, grammaticalization, and the problem of mutual isomorphism’, in Boeder, W., Schroeder, C. and Wagner, C. H. and Wildgen, W. (eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, vol. II: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 89–103.Google Scholar

Matras, Y., McMahon, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.) 2006. Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. 2007. ‘Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence’, Studies in Language 31: 829–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mirčev, K. 1963. Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. ‘Language contact’, in Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. and Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.), Universals of human language. Stanford University Press, pp. 93–123.Google Scholar

Nadkarni, M. V. 1975. ‘Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani’, Language 51(3): 672–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 1999. ‘Verb movement and markedness’, in DeGraff, M. (ed.), Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 287–328.Google Scholar

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

Smith, I. 1985. ‘Multilingualism and diffusion: A case study from Singapore English’, Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 105–28.Google Scholar

Smith, N. V. 1981. ‘Consistency, markedness and language change: On the notion of “consistent language”’, Journal of Linguistics 17: 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language contact. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

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

Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 141–77.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 1996. ‘Dual source pidgins and reverse creoles: Northern perspectives on language contact’, in Ernst, H. Jahr and Broch, I. (eds.), Language contact in the Arctic: Northern pidgins and contact languages. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trudgill, P. 2001. ‘Contact and simplification: Historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change’, Linguistic Typology 5(2/3): 371–4.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 2004. ‘The impact of language contact and social structure on linguistic structure: Focus on the dialects of Modern Greek’, in Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialect grammar from across-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 435–52.Google Scholar

Vachek, J. 1972. ‘On the interplay of external and external factors in the development of languages’, in Malmberg, B. (ed.), Readings in modern linguistics: An anthology. Stockholm: Läromedelsförlagen, pp. 209–23.Google Scholar

Weinreich, U. [1953] 1964. Languages in contact. London, The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Wiemer, B. and Wälchli, B. 2012. ‘Contact-induced grammatical change: Diverse phenomena, diverse perspectives’, in Wiemer, , Wälchli, and Hansen, (eds.), pp. 3–63.Google Scholar

Wiemer, B., Wälchli, B. and Hansen, B. (eds.) 2012. Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Winford, D. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ziegeler, D. 2014. ‘Replica grammaticalisation as recapitulation: The other side of contact’, Diachronica 31(1): 106–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar