f Diachrony and Diachronica

References

1. Alexiadou, Artemis & Terje Lohndal
   2016 The grammar of multilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology71. 1397. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01397
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01397 [Google Scholar]
2. Chomsky, Noam
   1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Crisma, Paola & Giuseppe Longobardi
   2021 Introduction: 30 years of DiGS. Journal of Historical Syntax5(1). 1–5. Special issue: Proceedings of the 20th Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS) Conference.
   [Google Scholar]
4. van Gelderen, Elly
   2004 Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.71
   https://doi.org/10.1075/la.71 [Google Scholar]
5. Kroch, Anthony
   1994 Morphosyntactic variation. InKatherine Beals (ed.), Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 180–201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Lightfoot, David W.
   1979 Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Longobardi, Giuseppe, Cristina Guardiano, Giuseppina Silvestri, Alessio Boattini & Andrea Ceolin
   2013 Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics3(1). 122–152. 10.1075/jhl.3.1.07lon
   https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.3.1.07lon [Google Scholar]
8. Roberts, Ian
   2021 Diachronic syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
   2003 A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
10. Sanfelici, Emanuela
    2023 The syntacticization of discourse in diachrony: Insights from subordination. Paper presented atDiGS 24, Paris, July 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Simonenko, Alexandra
    2023 A language change approach to probabilistic universals: Case and order. Paper presented atDiGS 24, Paris, July 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Walkden, George
    2013 The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica301. 95–122. 10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal [Google Scholar]
13. Walkden, George & Anne Breitbarth
    2019 Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change. Theoretical Linguistics451. 183–209. 10.1515/tl‑2019‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0012 [Google Scholar]
14. Whitman, John, Dianne Jonas & Andrew Garrett
    2012 Introduction. InDianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Bonilla, J. E., M. Bouzouita, and R. L. S. Díaz
    2022 La construccíon del Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Español Rural – anotado y parseado: Avances en el etiquetado de las partes del discurso. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberorrománica 40 [The construction of the Oral and Sound Corpus of Rural Spanish – annotated and parsed: Advances in labeling parts of speech], 77–96. 10.31819/rili‑2022‑204006
    https://doi.org/10.31819/rili-2022-204006 [Google Scholar]
16. Booth, H., A. Breitbarth, A. Ecay, and M. Farasyn
    2020 A Penn-style treebank of Middle Low German. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 766–775. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.96.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
17. Breitbarth, A., M. Farasyn, A.-S. Ghyselen, and J. V. Keymeulen
    2020 Het Gesproken Corpus van de zuidelijk- Nederlandse Dialecten (GCND) [The spoken corpus of the Southern Dutch Dialects (GCND)]. Handelingen (KZM)LXXII1, 23–38. 10.21825/kzm.v72i0.17914
    https://doi.org/10.21825/kzm.v72i0.17914 [Google Scholar]
18. Kestemont, M., F. Karsdorp, E. de Bruijn, M. Driscoll, K. A. Kapitan, P. Macháin, D. Sawyer, R. Sleiderink, and A. Chao
    2022 Forgotten books: The application of unseen species models to the survival of culture. Science6582, 375, 765–769. 10.1126/science.abl7655
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl7655 [Google Scholar]
19. Kroch, A.
    2020 Penn Parsed Corpora of Historical English. LDC2020T16. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. 10.35111/4hzx‑5483
    https://doi.org/10.35111/4hzx-5483 [Google Scholar]
20. Labov, W.
    1982 Building on empirical foundations. InW. P. Lehman and Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 17–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.24.06lab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.24.06lab [Google Scholar]
21. Martins, A. M.
    2000– CORDIAL-SIN: Corpus Dialectal para o Estudo da Sintaxe / Syntax-oriented Corpus of Portuguese Dialects. University of Lisbon, www.clul.ulisboa.pt/en/10-research/314-cordial-s
    [Google Scholar]
22. Szmrecsanyi, B. and L. Anderwald
    2018 Corpus-based approaches to dialect study. InC. Boberg, J. Nerbonne, and D. Watt (Eds.), The Handbook of Dialectology, 300–313. Oxford & Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Tortora, C., B. Santorini, F. Blanchette, and C. Diertani
    2017 The audio-aligned and parsed corpus of Appalachian English (AAPCAppE), version 0.1. www.aapcappe.org
24. Van Craenenbroeck, J., M. van Koppen, and A. van den Bosch
    2019 A quantitative-theoretical analysis of syntactic microvariation: Word order in Dutch verb clusters. Language951, 333–370. 10.1353/lan.2019.0033
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0033 [Google Scholar]
25. Weinreich, U., W. Labov, and M. I. Herzog
    1968 Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. InW. P. Lehmann (ed.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Ben Hamed Mahé, & Sébastien Flavier
    2009 A database for deriving diachronic universals. InMonique Dufresne, Fernande Dupuis, & Etleva Vocaj (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2007: Selected papers from the 18th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 6–11 August 2007, 259–268. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.308.21ham
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.308.21ham [Google Scholar]
27. Delvaux, Véronique & Alain Soquet
    2007 The influence of ambient speech on adult speech productions through unintentional imitation. Phonetica64(2–3). 145–173. 10.1159/000107914
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000107914 [Google Scholar]
28. Gamkrelidze, Thomas & Vjacheslav Ivanov
    1973 Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse. Phonetica27(3). 150–156. 10.1159/000259433
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000259433 [Google Scholar]
29. Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson
    2013 Phonetic bias in sound change. InAlan Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
30. Kümmel, Martin
    2007 Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Lass, Roger
    1986 Conventionalism, invention, and ‘historical reality’: Some reflections on method. Diachronica3(1). 15–42. 10.1075/dia.3.1.03las
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.3.1.03las [Google Scholar]
32. Maddieson, Ian
    1984 Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753459
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753459 [Google Scholar]
33. Meillet, Antoine
    1937 Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Ohala, John
    1993 The phonetics of sound change. InCharles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Wedel, Andrew, Abby Kaplan & Scott Jackson
    2013 High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition1281. 179–186. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002 [Google Scholar]
36. Baayen, R. Harald & Petar Milin
    2010 Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research3(2): 12–28. 10.21500/20112084.807
    https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807 [Google Scholar]
37. Beöthy, Erzsébet & Gabriel Altmann
    1982 Das Piotrowski-Gesetz und der Lehnwortschatz. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft11. 171–178. 10.1515/zfsw.1982.1.2.171
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1982.1.2.171 [Google Scholar]
38. Cowpertwait, Paul S. & Andrew V. Metcalfe
    2009 Introductory time series with R. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
39. De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
    2020 A corpus-based quantitative analysis of twelve centuries of preterite and past participle morphology in Dutch. Language Variation and Change321: 241–265. 10.1017/S0954394520000101
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394520000101 [Google Scholar]
40. Ellegård, Alvar
    1953 The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert
    2008 The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora3(1): 59–81. 10.3366/E1749503208000075
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000075 [Google Scholar]
42. Hosmer, David W., Stanley Lemeshow & Susanne May
    2008 Applied survival analysis: Regression modeling of time-to-event data. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470258019
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470258019 [Google Scholar]
43. Jenset, Gard B. & Barbara McGillivray
    2017 Quantitative historical linguistics. A corpus framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Koplenig, Alexander
    2017 Why the quantitative analysis of diachronic corpora that does not consider the temporal aspect of time-series can lead to wrong conclusions. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities32(1): 159–168.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Koplenig, Alexander & Carolin Müller-Spitzer
    2016 Population size predicts lexical diversity, but so does the mean sea level – Why it is important to correctly account for the structure of temporal data. PLoS ONE11(3), e0150771. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150771
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150771 [Google Scholar]
46. Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín
    2014 Grammatical change begins within the word: Causal modeling of the co-evolution of Icelandic morphology and syntax. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society361. 2657–2662.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Rosemeyer, Malte & Freek Van de Velde
    2021 On cause and correlation in language change. Word order and clefting in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Dynamics and Change11(1). 130–166. 10.1163/22105832‑01001500
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-01001500 [Google Scholar]
48. Sigurðardóttir, Sigríður
    . n.d.. Language forecasting with focus on variation and change within Icelandic. Manuscript
    [Google Scholar]
49. Van de Velde, Freek, Stefano De Pascale & Dirk Speelman
    2022 Generalizability in mixed models: Lessons from corpus linguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences45, e34. 61–63. 10.1017/S0140525X21000236
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000236 [Google Scholar]
50. Van de Velde, Freek & Isabeau De Smet
    2022 Markov models for multi-state language change. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics29(3). 314–338. 10.1080/09296174.2021.1877004
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2021.1877004 [Google Scholar]
51. Van de Velde, Freek & Alek Keersmaekers
    2020 What are the determinants of survival curves of words? An evolutionary linguistics approach. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory2(2). 127–137. 10.1075/elt.00019.vel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00019.vel [Google Scholar]
52. Van de Velde, Freek & Peter Petré
    2020 Historical linguistics. InSvenja Adolphs & Dawn Knight (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language and digital humanities, 328–359. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003031758‑18
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031758-18 [Google Scholar]
53. Van de Velde, Freek, Josefien Piersoul, Isabeau De Smet & Eloisa Ruppert
    2021 Changing preferences in cultural references. InGitte Kristiansen, Karlien Franco, Stefano De Pascale, Laura Rosseel & Weiwei Zhang (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics revisited, 584–595. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110733945‑047
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733945-047 [Google Scholar]
54. Van de Velde, Freek & Dirk Pijpops
    2021 Investigating lexical effects in syntax with regularized regression (Lasso). Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science6(2). 166–199. 10.1558/jrds.18964
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.18964 [Google Scholar]
55. Winter, Bodo & Martijn Wieling
    2016 How to analyze linguistic change using mixed models, Growth Curve Analysis and Generalized Additive Modeling. Journal of Language Evolution11. 7–18. 10.1093/jole/lzv003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzv003 [Google Scholar]
56. Bailey, George
    2018 Insertion and deletion in Northern English (ng): Interacting innovations in the life cycle of phonological processes. Paper 1 in PhD thesis ‘Variation and change in Northern English velar nasals: production and perception’. University of Manchester.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo
    2003 The acquisition of phonological opacity. InJennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson & Östen Dahl (eds.), Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on ‘Variation within optimality theory’, 25–36. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, University of Stockholm.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo
    2015 Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. InPatrick Honeybone & Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 374–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo
    2019 The life cycle of phonological processes and rule scattering. Session 6 in the Brugmann Fellow course Alternation types: Computation, storage, history. University of Leipzig, July 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Graeme Trousdale
    2012 Cycles and continua: On unidirectionality and gradualness in language change. InTerttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. New York: Oxford University Press, 691–720. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0059
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0059 [Google Scholar]
61. Hale, Mark, Madelyn Kissock & Charles Reiss
    2015 An I-language approach to phonologization and lexification. InPatrick Honeybone & Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 337–358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
63. Iosad, Pavel
    2020 The life cycle of preaspiration in the Gaelic languages. InJoanna Kopaczyk & Robert McColl Millar (eds.), Language on the move across domains and communities: Selected papers from the 12th triennial Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster, 200–230. Aberdeen: FRLSU.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Kiparsky, Paul
    1985 Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook21. 85–138. 10.1017/S0952675700000397
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000397 [Google Scholar]
65. Kiparsky, Paul
    1988 Phonological change. InFrederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Volume 1: Linguistic theory: Foundations, 363–415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Ramsammy, Michael
    2015 The life cycle of phonological processes: Accounting for dialectal microtypologies. Language and Linguistics Compass9(1). 33–54. 10.1111/lnc3.12102
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12102 [Google Scholar]
67. Sen, Ranjan
    2016 Examining the life cycle of phonological processes: Considerations for historical research. Papers in Historical Phonology11: 5–36. 10.2218/pihph.1.2016.1691
    https://doi.org/10.2218/pihph.1.2016.1691 [Google Scholar]
68. Sen, Ranjan
    2020 Feeling the irresistible Latin beat: The role of the grammar in sound change. Paper presented atAbralin ao Vivo – Linguists Online seminar series, 23 July 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Sen, Ranjan
    2022 Cycle psychology: Experimentally testing the life cycle of phonological change. Paper presented atthe Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL25), Oxford, 1–5 August 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Turton, Danielle
    2016 Synchronic stratum-specific rates of application reflect diachronic change: morphosyntactic conditioning of variation in English /l/-darkening. Papers in Historical Phonology11, 130–165. 10.2218/pihph.1.2016.1697
    https://doi.org/10.2218/pihph.1.2016.1697 [Google Scholar]
71. Vaux, Bert
    2008 Why the phonological component must be serial and rule-based. InBert Vaux & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena, 20–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226511.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226511.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
72. Butt, Miriam & Aditi Lahiri
    2013 Diachronic pertinancy of light verbs. Lingua1351, 7–29. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.006 [Google Scholar]
73. Dresher, B. Elan & Aditi Lahiri
    2005 Main Stress Left in Early Middle English. InM. Fortescue, E. S. Jensen, J. E. Mogensen, & L. Schøsler (eds.) Historical Linguistics 2003: Selected Papers from the 16th International Congress of Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen 11–15 August, 74–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.257.07dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.257.07dre [Google Scholar]
74. Honeybone, Patrick & Joseph Salmons
    2015 The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232819.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232819.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
75. Kennard, Holly & Aditi Lahiri
    2020 Nonesuch phonemes in loanwords. Linguistics581, 83–108. 10.1515/ling‑2019‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0033 [Google Scholar]
76. Keenan, Edward
    1994 Creating anaphors: An historical study of the English reflexive pronouns. Ms., University of California at Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Keenan, Edward
    2002 Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. InD. Minkova & R. Stockwell (eds.) Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective325–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197143.3.325
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197143.3.325 [Google Scholar]
78. Kiparsky, Paul
    2015 Phonologization. InP. Honeybone & J. Salmons (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, 563–582. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Lahiri, Aditi & Holly Kennard
    2019 Pertinacity in loanwords: Same underlying systems, different outputs. InM. Cennamo (ed.) Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected Papers from the 22nd International Congress of Historical Linguistics, Naples 27–31 July, 58–74. 10.1075/cilt.348.03lah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.03lah [Google Scholar]
80. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    2001 Formal syntax, diachronic Minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry321, 275–302. 10.1162/00243890152001771
    https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001771 [Google Scholar]
81. Plank, Frans & Aditi Lahiri
    2015 Macrosopic and microscopic typology: Basic Valance Orientation, more pertinacious than meets the naked eye. Linguistic Typology191, 1–54. 10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0001 [Google Scholar]
82. Plank, Frans
    2015 Time for change. InCarlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on Historical Syntax, §1.4. 61–91. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.169.03pla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.169.03pla [Google Scholar]
83. Walkden, George
    2012 Against inertia, Lingua. 122(8), 891–901, 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.03.001.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.03.001 [Google Scholar]