Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- 2Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
- 3Databases for Comparative Syntactic Research
- 4Quantitative Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 5Computational Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 6Comparative Syntax from Formal and Functional Perspectives
- 7Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
- 8Change
- 9Universal and Language-Specific Properties of Language
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
8 - Change
Comparative Syntax and Diachrony
from Part I - Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part IComparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- 2Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
- 3Databases for Comparative Syntactic Research
- 4Quantitative Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 5Computational Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 6Comparative Syntax from Formal and Functional Perspectives
- 7Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
- 8Change
- 9Universal and Language-Specific Properties of Language
- Part IIComparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part IIIComparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IVComparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews the role of the close study of comparative syntax in advancing our knowledge and understanding of the mechanisms, triggers, and processes involved in syntactic change. While it is possible to infer significant insights and lessons about the nature of diachronic change from the study of successive synchronic stages of a single language, there is no doubt that the comparison of the historical development of two or more languages may offer broader empirical and deeper theoretical insights that are simply not available to language-specific investigations. This chapter therefore considers a number of representative examples which highlight the value and power of comparative linguistic investigation as a tool, not only for effectively probing linguistic reconstruction and linguistic relatedness, but above all for understanding the dimensions and limits of variation observed in how and why languages change through time and space.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 228 - 262Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality, and Adposition Stranding. Unpublished thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Agbayani, B., and Golston, C.. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86: 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. 2016. Romansh (Rumantsch). In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 169–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, J., and Roberts, I.. 2022. Extending parametric comparison: Some results on the Romance periphery. Paper presented at the 49th Romance Linguistics Seminar, Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge, January 5, 2022.Google Scholar
Baker, J., Isolani, E., and Roberts, I.. 2020. Extending parametric comparison. Paper presented at SyntaxLab, University of Cambridge, November 16, 2020.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I.. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2002. The Rich Agreement Hypothesis in review. In Abe, Y. (ed.), Complex Predicates and Argument Structure, 63–109. Nagoya: Nanzan University.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 1994. D-structure, θ-criterion, and movement into θ-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247–286.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2003. On left branch extraction. In Kosta, P., Błaszczak, J., Frasek, J., Geist, L., and Żygis, M. (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics, 543–577. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 613–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2005a. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2005b. Left branch extraction, structure of NP, and scrambling. In Sabel, J. and Saito, M. (eds.), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, 13–73. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual North East Linguistic Society, 101–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63: 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2019. On the clausal and NP structure of Serbo-Croatian. Ms., University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž., and Gajewski, J.. 2011 Semantic correlates of the NP/DP parameter. In Lima, S., Mullin, K., and Smith, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual North East Linguistic Society, 121–134. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Brinton, L., and Traugott, E.. 2017. Non-syntactic sources and triggers of syntactic change. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 556–578. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, J. 2017. The Comparative Method and Comparative Reconstruction. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 190–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clemens, L., and Coon, J.. 2018. Deriving verb-initial order in Mayan. Language 94: 237–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournane, A. 2014. In search of L1 evidence for diachronic reanalysis: Mapping modal verbs. Language Acquisition 21(1): 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournane, A. 2015. Modal Development: Input-Divergent L1 Acquisition in the Direction of Diachronic Reanalysis. Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Cournane, A. 2017. In defense of the child innovator. In Mathieu, E. and Truswell, R. (eds.), Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax, 10–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournane, A. 2019. A developmental view on incrementation in language change. Theoretical Linguistics 45(3–4): 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Alessandro, R., and Ledgeway, A.. 2010. At the C–T boundary: Investigating Abruzzese complementation. Lingua 120: 2040–2060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Alessandro, R., and Roberts, I.. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null‐subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delille, K. H. 1970. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des präpositionalen Akkusativs im Portugieschen. Bonn: Romanisches Seminar der Universität Bonn.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, A. 2014. L’accord du participe passé en ancien roumain. Linguistica Atlantica 33: 38–51.Google Scholar
England, N. 1991. Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 57: 446–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eska, J. 2008. Continental Celtic. In Woodard, R. (ed.), The Ancient Languages of Europe, 165–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagard, B., and Mardale, A.. 2014. “Non, mais tu l’as vu à lui?” Analyse(s) du marquage différentiel de l’objet en français. Verbum 36: 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorentino, G. 2003. Prepositional objects in Neapolitan. In Fiorentino, G. (ed.), Romance Objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages, 117–151. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, A. 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, L. 2013. A typological rarurm in Sogdian: Overt complementizers in indicative root clauses. Lingua Posnaniensis 55: 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, J., and Poletto, C. 2009. Quantifiers as negative markers in Italian dialects. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, J., and Poletto, C.. 2014. The dynamics of the PF interface: Negation and clitic clusters. Lingua 140: 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, J., and Poletto, C.. 2018. Sintassi formale e micro-tipologia della negazione dei dialetti italiani. In Brincat, G. and Caruana, S. (eds.), Tipologia e ‘dintorni’: Il metodo tipologico alla intersezione di piani, 83–102. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004a. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004b. Economy, innovation, and prescriptivism: From Spec to head and from head to head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 59–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M., and Ruhlen, M.. 2011. The origin and evolution of word order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 17290–17295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Granda, G. 1988. Notas sobre retenciones sintácticas en el español del Paraguay. Lexis 12: 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. 2000. Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left. Unpublished thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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, 149–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guardiano, C., Michelioudakis, D., Ceolin, A., Irimia, M., Longobardi, G., Radkevich, N., Silvestri, G., and Sitaridou, I.. 2016. South by southeast: A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation. L’Italia Dialettale 77: 95–166.Google Scholar
Haddican, B. 2004. Sentence polarity and word order in Basque. The Linguistic Review 21: 87–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddican, B., and Elordieta, A.. 2013. V≥2 in Basque. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 59–68.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. 2013. Negation in the history of French. In Willis, D., Lucas, C., and Breitbarth, A. (eds.), The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. I: Case Studies, 51–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B., and Visconti, J.. 2012. The evolution of negation in French and Italian: Similarities and differences. Folia Linguistica 46: 453–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27: 529–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. 2000. Poeticality and word order in Old Tamil. In Herring, S., van Reenen, P., and Schøsler, L. (eds.), Textual Parameters in Older Languages, 197–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, G. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34: 239–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, T. 1999. Cyclic Spell-out and the that-t effects. In Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J., and Norquest, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, 220–231. Somerville, MD: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. 1990. Greek. In Comrie, B. (ed.), The Major Languages of Eastern Europe, 144–473. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kabatek, J., Obrist, P., and Wall, A. (eds.). 2021. Differential Object Marking in Romance: The Third Wave. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, G. 2002. Die Verb-Zweit-Stellung im Raetoromanischen: Ein typologischer Vergleich. Ladinia 26–27: 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the History of English: A Millennial Perspective, 325–355. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, O., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2014. The Rich Agreement Hypothesis rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 571–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurthi, B. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, 140–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T. 2017. Contact and borrowing. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 163–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, B. 2006. El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española, vol. 1, 423–475. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2000. A Comparative Syntax of the Dialects of Southern Italy: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2008. Satisfying V2 in early Romance: Merge vs move. Journal of Linguistics 44: 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2009b. Aspetti della sintassi della periferia sinistra del cosentino. In Pescarini, D. (ed.), Studi sui dialetti della Calabria [Quaderni di lavoro ASIt n.9], 3–24. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2013a. Contatto e mutamento: Complementazione e complementatori nei dialetti del Salento. In Benedetti, M. (ed.), Lingue e grammatiche. Contatti, divergenze, confronti, special issue of Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 41: 459–480.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2013b. Greek disguised as Romance? The case of southern Italy. In Janse, M., Joseph, B. D., Ralli, A., and Bağrıaçık, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory. Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras, 184–228.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2015. Reconstructing complementiser-drop in the dialects of the Salento: A syntactic or phonological phenomenon? In Biberauer, T. and Walkden, G. (eds), Syntax Over Time: Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions, 146–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2016. Grammatiche diacroniche e teoria linguistica. In Benedetti, M., Bruno, C., Dardano, P., and Tronci, L. (eds.), Grammatiche e Grammatici. Teorie, Testi e Contesti. Atti del XXXIX Convegno Annuale della Società Italiana di Glottologia, 39–51. Rome: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2017a. Syntheticity and analyticity. In Dufter, A. and Stark, E. (eds.), Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax (Manuals of Romance Linguistics), 83–84. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2017b. Late Latin verb second: The sentential word order of the Itinerarium Egeriae. In Fontanals, J. M. and Oniga, R. (eds.), Generative Approaches to Latin Syntax, special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16, 163–216. http://revistes.uab.cat/catJL/article/view/v16-ledgeway/212.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2018. Parametric variation in DOM in the dialects of southern Italy. Paper presented at Differential Object Marking in Less-Studied Romance Varieties, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales, Paris, November 9–10.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2020a. Rethinking microvariation in Romance demonstrative systems. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences, vol. II. Between Syntax and Morphology [Open Generative Syntax Series], 451–490. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2020b. The north–south divide: Parameters of variation in the clausal domain. L’Italia Dialettale 81: 29–77.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2020c. Variation in the Gallo-Romance left periphery: V2, complementizers, and the Gascon enunciative system. In Wolfe, S. and Maiden, M. (eds.), Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar, 71–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2022a. Residues and extensions of perfective auxiliary be: Modal conditioning. In Poletto, C. and Balsemin, T. (eds.), New Perspectives on Italian Dialects, special issue of Languages 7(3), 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2022b. Disentangling parameters: Romance differential object marking and the distribution of head and edge features. In Alboiu, G., Isac, D., Nicolae, A., Tănase-Dogaru, M. and Tigău, A. (eds.), Studies in Honour of Alexandra Cornilescu, 439–458. Bucharest: Editura Universității din Bucarești.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2023a. Parametric variation in differential object marking in the dialects of Italy. In Irimia, M. and Mardale, A. (eds.), Differential Object Marking in Romance: Towards Microvariation, 267–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2023b. La distribuzione dell’accusativo preposizionale nei dialetti d’Italia. In Del Puente, P. and Carbutti, T. (eds.), Atti del VI Convegno internazionale di dialettologia – Progetto A.L.Ba, 81–130. Lagonegro: Zaccara Editore.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2023c. Differential object marking in the dialects of southern Italy. In Pineda, A. (ed.), Differential Object Marking in Romance, special issue of Caplletra: Revista Internacional de Filologia, 74: 1–36.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Lombardi, A.. 2014. The development of the southern subjunctive: Morphological loss and syntactic gain. In Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A., and Vincent, N. (eds.), Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, 25–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Maiden, M.. 2022. Data, theory, and explanation: The view from Romance. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics, 1–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Roberts, I.. 2017. Principles and parameters. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 581–628. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Schifano, N.. 2023. Negation and verb-movement in Romance: New perspectives on Jespersen’s Cycle. Probus 35(1): 151–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., Schifano, N., and Silvestri, G.. 2020. Microvariation in dative-marking in the Romance and Greek varieties of southern Italy. In Pineda, A. and Mateu, J. (eds.), Dative Structures in Romance and Beyond, 317–349. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., Schifano, N., and Silvestri, G.. Submitted. Greek–Romance Language Contact: Documentation and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Smith, J. C.. 2016. Deixis. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 879–896. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K.-M., and Ramsey, S. R.. 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2008. Specificity in clitic doubling and in differential object marking. Probus 20: 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 2017. Imperfect transmission and discontinuity. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 515–533. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löfstedt, E. 1911. Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., and Guardiano, C.. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119: 1679–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G., and Guardiano, C.. 2017. Phylogenetic reconstruction in syntax: The Parametric Comparison Method. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 241–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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: 122–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, M. 1998. Sintassi comparata dell’accordo participiale romanzo. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, M. 2016. Auxiliary selection and participle agreement. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. 802–818. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S., and Bubenik, V.. 2010. Historical linguistics: History, sources and resources. In Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Historical Linguistics, 1–36. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., and Savoia, L.. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3 vols). Alessandria, Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Matras, Y., and Sakel, J.. 2007. Investigating the patterns of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31: 829–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihalicek, V. 2012. Serbo-Croatian Word Order: A Logical Approach. Doctoral thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Norman, W., and Campbell, L.. 1978. Toward a Proto-Mayan syntax: A comparative perspective on grammar. In England, N. (ed.), Papers in Mayan Linguistics, 136–156. University of Missouri: University of Missouri Miscellaneous Publications in Anthropology 6.Google Scholar
Parry, M. 1997. Negation. In Maiden, M. and Parry, M. (eds.), The Dialects of Italy, 179–185. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pieraccioni, D. 1951. Intorno all’accordo del participio passato. Lingua Nostra 12: 26.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. 2018. Acostament al marcatge diferencial d’objecte als inicis del català modern. eHumanista/IVITRA 14: 570–596.Google Scholar
Pineda, A. 2021. El marcatge diferencial d’objecte en català (i Fabra). In Pradilla, M.À. (ed.), De llengua i societat: de la proposta fabriana a la reforma normativa de l’IEC, 211–222. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S., Taylor, A., and Warner, A.. 2017. Corpora and quantitative methods. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 218–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C. 2002. The left periphery of a V2-Rhaetoromance dialect: A new perspective on V2 and V3. In Barbiers, S., Cornips, L., and van der Kleij, S. (eds.), Syntactic Microvariation: Proceedings of the Workshop on Syntactic Microvariation, Amsterdam, August 2000. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute. www.meertens.knaw.nl/medewerkers/marc.van.oostendorp/microvariation/poletto.pdf.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 2008. On negative doubling. In Cognola, F. and Pescarini, D. (eds.), La negazione: Variazione dialettale ed evoluzione diacronica [Quaderni di lavoro dell’ASIt n.8], 57–84. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 2016a. Negation. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 833–846. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C. 2016b. Negative doubling: In favor of a “Big NegP” analysis. In Cruschina, S., Hartmann, K., and Remberger, E-M. (eds.), Studies on Negation, 81–104. Vienna: V&R Unipress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pompeo, F. 2013. Il sincretismo di genitivo e dativo nella lega balcanica. Una convergenza multipla? In Benedetti, M. (ed.), Lingue e grammatiche: Contatti, divergenze, confronti. Special issue of Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 41(3), 531–544.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. In Reibel, D. and Shane, S. (eds.), Modern Studies in English, 201–223. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP, 297–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012. Macroparameters and Minimalism: A programme for comparative research. In Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sândalo, F., and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change, 320–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2017. Inertia. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 425–445. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G. 1971. Autour de l’accusatif prépositionnel dans les langues romanes: Concordances et discordances. Revue de linguistique romane 35: 312–334.Google Scholar
Saito, M., and Murasugi, K.. 1999. Subject predication within IP and DP. In Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, 167–188. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakel, J. 2008. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 15–30. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. 2016a. Ladin. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 154–168. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvi, G. 2016b. Word order. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, 997–1012. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandfeld, K. 1930. Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes and résultats. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Schifano, N. 2018. Verb Placement in Romance: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Singh, O. 2019. The Emergence of Differential Object Marking in Spoken Northern Italian: A Syntactic Investigation. MPhil thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Singh, O. 2023. Differential Object Marking in Romance. Doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.108895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, R. 1997. L’oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico. Considerazioni su un problema di tipologia diacronica. Italienische Studien 18: 66–80.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1999. The Synchrony and Diachrony of Deixis in Old Neapolitan (with Special Reference to the Cronache E Ricordi of Loise De Rosa). Ms., The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K., and Kaiser, G.. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In von Heusinger, K., Kaiser, G., and Stark, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance.” Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Arbeitspapier 119, 33–69.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2017. The actuation problem. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 402–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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, 95–189. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M., Yates, A., and Dols, N.. 1999. Catalan: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2017. Endogenous and exogenous theories of syntactic change. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 491–514. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., Lucas, C., and Breitbarth, A. (eds.). 2013. The History of the Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Y., and Whitman, J.. 2009. Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asia Asian Linguistics 18: 101–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.