LINGUIST List 15.1232

Sat Apr 17 2004

Review: Historical Ling/Syntax: Roberts & Roussou(2003)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>


What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  1. Brady Zack Clark, Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization

Message 1: Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brady Zack Clark <bzackstanford.edu>
Subject: Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization

Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou (2003) Syntactic Change: A Minimalist
Approach to Grammaticalization, Cambridge University Press.

Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-629.html


Brady Zack Clark, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.

INTRODUCTION

Roberts and Roussou seek to provide a general analysis of a robust 
diachronic phenomenon, grammaticalization. Grammaticalization is 
standardly defined (e.g., Lehmann 1985) as the creation of new 
functional material through the reanalysis of lexical material or 
existing functional material; e.g., the development of English 
auxiliary verbs from lexical verbs. The central claim of the book is 
that grammaticalization is a regular case of parameter change 
(Lightfoot 1991, Lightfoot 1999), not a separate and unique type of 
change. Consequently, grammaticalization is claimed to be 
epiphenomenal. This claim dovetails with other recent work on 
grammaticalization; see e.g. Newmeyer (1998) and Traugott (2003).

There has traditionally been a rift between historical syntacticians 
working in the Principles and Parameters framework and the 
grammaticalization community. The former tradition (see e.g. Lightfoot 
1999) has viewed diachronic change as a random walk around the space 
defined by a set of parameters, rejecting the idea that there are 
tendencies or pathways in diachronic change, a common theme of 
grammaticalization studies. Roberts and Roussou's book is an important 
contribution to the historical syntax literature, particularly for its 
attempt at reconciling these two approaches to change, as well as for 
its rich set of case studies. As I discuss in the critical evaluation 
below, some open questions remain, and more work needs to be done to 
provide a fully specified account of grammaticalization. In the first 
part of the review, I describe the content of the book. In the second 
part, I look critically at some of Roberts and Roussou guiding 
assumptions.


SYNOPSIS

After a brief introduction, a chapter on the formal framework for 
cross-linguistic variation and change sets the stage for the three 
empirical chapters that follow. 

Chapter 1 Parameters, functional heads and language change

The goal of Roberts and Roussou's book is twofold. First, to address 
the question of syntactic change in the context of the Minimalist 
Program in order to provide a general analysis of grammaticalization. 
Second, to explain the existence of variation and change when language 
is claimed to be (in some sense) a perfect system (the 'Strong 
Minimalist Thesis'; Chomsky (1995,2000,2001), more on this below). 
Along the way, they explore the nature of functional categories, using 
grammaticalization as a probe. In the first chapter, they present their 
model of parametric variation. Functional heads (e.g., T(ense), 
D(eterminer), etc.) are present in all languages (following e.g. Cinque 
1999), although they may not be realized morphophonologically. Each 
functional head may be associated with a P(honetic)F(orm) realization. 
This realization can be achieved by Merge (i.e., the lexicon provides a 
morphophonological matrix for the functional head) or Move (i.e., 
material from elsewhere in the clause structure is moved to the 
functional head). Given this background, language change consists of 
change in the PF realization of functional heads. Change occurs when 
the trigger experience for a parameter setting (e.g., whether a 
functional head is realized by Merge or Move) is ambiguous or obscure. 
The next few chapters explore Roberts and Roussou's model of parametric 
variation and change, and the implications for approaches to 
grammaticalization. 

Chapter 2 T elements

Chapter 2, like the two empirical chapters that follow it, aims to 
provide evidence for the idea that grammaticalization involves the 
reanalysis of functional categories. For Roberts and Roussou, clause 
structure roughly conforms to the hierarchy CP-TP-VP, where CP 
dominates TP and VP, and TP dominates VP. The principal idea is that 
reanalysis of functional heads always involves reanalysis of movement; 
e.g., a functional head that was previously realized by movement is 
realized by a morphophonological matrix provided by the lexicon. This 
chapter deals with the grammaticalization of T(ense) elements. The case 
studies investigated are familiar from previous work on 
grammaticalization: the development of English modals, Romance futures, 
and the future particle ''tha'' in Greek. For each of these, the account 
is roughly similar. Grammaticalization is always upward reanalysis 
(alternatively, syntactic scope expansion; Tabor and Traugott 1998) 
along the clausal hierarchy CP-TP-VP: a small, unproductive, subclass 
of a lexical category is reanalyzed as a subclass of a functional 
category. To illustrate, for English modals, a subclass of lexical 
verbs (Warner 1993: 147) which were once moved to T are directly merged 
in T; i.e., reanalyzed as elements of T. 

Chapter 3 C elements

The next set of case studies focus on the grammaticalization of 
C(omplementizer) elements like English ''that''. As with the 
grammaticalization of T elements, the reanalysis of C elements is 
upwards. The first three case studies focus on the development of the 
Greek subjunctive particle ''na'', the Southern Italian particle ''mu'', 
and the English infinitival marker ''to''. These case studies, in 
contrast to those in Chapter 2, are not associated with loss of 
movement steps. Rather, the selectional properties of certain lexical 
or functional heads change such that certain features associated with a 
lower head become associated with a higher head. The grammaticalization 
of ''na'' and ''mu'' both involve the transfer of Mood features from T to 
M(odal) (where M is in the C domain), as a consequence of the loss of 
inflection (i.e., subjunctive morphology). The final two case studies 
both involve loss of movement steps: the development of Germanic 
complementizers and the development of complementizers from serial 
verbs.

Chapter 4 D elements

The final empirical chapter concentrates on a third functional 
category: the grammaticalization of D(eterminer) elements. As with the 
grammaticalization of C and T elements, grammaticalization in the D 
domain is argued to involve upward reanalysis; e.g., the loss of 
movement steps or the transfer of features associated with DPs to 
functional heads in the clausal domain. The case studies include the 
development of Romance definite determiners out of demonstratives 
(e.g., the Romance article out of the Latin demonstrative ''ille''), 
French n-words (e.g., ''rien''), Greek wh-words (e.g., ''dhen'') from 
indefinites, and universal quantifiers. The development of Romance 
definite determiners is claimed to involve the loss of movement within 
the DP, triggered by the loss of morphological case. The final two case 
studies focus on the development of clitic systems in Northern Italian 
dialects and the development of Welsh agreement affixes. The latter 
development provides an example where a lexical item associated with DP 
becomes the realization of a functional head in the clausal domain.

Chapter 5 Theoretical consequences

The final, theoretical chapter returns to the issues raised at the 
beginning of the book, in light of the case studies discussed in 
Chapters 2-4. In the first part of the chapter, Roberts and Roussou aim 
to give a general characterization of grammaticalization. They argue 
that each of the case studies discussed in previous chapters reduces to 
a single pattern: upward reanalysis giving rise to a new exponent for a 
higher functional head (pg. 200). In the second part, they address the 
tension between the observation that there are pathways of language 
change and the Principles and Parameters (random walk) approach to 
syntactic change. Their solution is to define the markedness of 
parameter values in terms of a simplicity metric, where, for example, 
Merge is less marked than Move. In the absence of cues (e.g., 
inflectional morphology) for marked parameter values, the less marked 
option is taken in acquisition. In the final part of the chapter, 
Roberts and Roussou address the nature of functional categories. Their 
central claim is that functional categories are ''defective'' at the 
interfaces (Phonetic Form and Logical Form; Chomsky 1995 et seq), in 
the sense that they lack non-logical content (e.g., argument structure) 
and are prosodically subminimal. For example, for Roberts and Roussou, 
the reduced auxiliary '''ll'' (as in ''Kim'll go to the party'') has no 
argument structure and no prosodic structure.


CRITICAL EVALUATION

As discussed in the introduction, Roberts and Roussou's book is 
exceptional in that it attempts to give a fully general, formal account 
of grammaticalization, thus bridging the divide between formal and 
functional accounts of this phenomenon; see van Kemenade (2000) and von 
Fintel (1995) for similar earlier attempts. The empirical net of the 
book is cast wide: eighteen case studies from a variety of languages, 
each with a synchronic description, as well as a formal account of the 
development. The account for each of these case studies is similar: 
upward reanalysis alongside semantic and phonological change. The book 
lays the foundation for future research on other grammaticalization 
phenomenon along the same lines, as well as work developing the formal 
framework and the theory of acquisition. Some potential problems and 
open questions remain, though. I address these in the remainder of the 
review. 

A. The WYSIWIG approach to functional categories

Roberts and Roussou adopt (pg. 28-29) an approach to clause structure 
in which there is no parametric variation in the set of functional 
heads (Q, WH, Neg, T, D, etc.) that appear in clause structure. 
Languages differ only in whether or not these heads are given a PF-
realization. I call this approach the universal architecture account of 
clause structure. 

Roberts and Roussou consider an alternative to the universal 
architecture account: (what they call) the `What you see is what you 
get' (WYSIWYG) analysis (pg. 24-25). In the WYSIWYG analysis, the only 
functional categories postulated as present in a given language, or 
even a given sentence, are the ones for which we see some kind of 
realization. The only instance they give of this approach is Grimshaw 
(1997), which argues that there is no fixed structure for clauses. They 
argue against the WYSIWYG account on conceptual and empirical grounds. 
Conceptually, the WYSIWYG account has no advantage over the universal 
architecture account because the distinction between syntax and 
phonology leads us to expect that certain elements will be realized at 
one level and absent at another. Empirically, they point out a flaw in 
Grimshaw's account of embedded clauses in sentences like ''I think it 
rained'' and state that it is hard to account for grammaticalization if 
change and variation involves structural change rather than simple 
category change - an argument from ignorance.

Roberts and Roussou's curt dismissal of the WYSIWYG approach to clause 
structure fails to do justice to the large body of literature that 
argues for that type of account. For example, a widely-accepted view of 
phrase structure in the Lexical-Functional Grammar tradition (Bresnan 
2001, Dalrymple 2001) is that the inventory of syntactic categories is 
not universally fixed. On this approach, the existence of a functional 
head position can be motivated in two ways. First, a functional head 
position can be motivated by the special syntactic elements that appear 
there; see e.g. Kroeger (1993) on evidence for a distinguished position 
in English, German, Warlpiri, and Tagalog in which only finite main 
verbs and auxiliaries appear. Second, a functional head can be 
motivated by the special positioning of certain elements; see e.g. King 
(1995) on the special positioning of tensed verbs in Russian. There is 
a large body of work in this tradition that argues for or against the 
presence of functional categories in a given language on empirical 
grounds. For example, Austin and Bresnan (1996) argue against the 
existence of a CP in Warlpiri. Sells (1995) argues that Korean and 
Japanese lack functional categories altogether. Roberts and Roussou's 
failure to grapple in any serious way with the considerable body of 
literature that assumes a WYSIWYG-like approach to clause structure 
seriously weakens their claims about the superiority of the universal 
architecture account. 

Another lacuna in Roberts and Roussou's account is detailed discussion 
of the body of work on the rise of new functional categories; see 
Condoravdi and Kiparsky (2001), Kiparsky (1995, 1997) and Vincent 
(1997) (also unpublished work by Ashwini Deo (2001)). Condoravdi and 
Kiparsky (2001) discuss the rise of a composite functional projection 
in Greek. Vincent (1997) (cited by Roberts and Roussou) shows that DP 
emerged historically in Romance. Kiparsky (1995) (whose analysis is 
reanalyzed by Roberts and Roussou) proposes that CP developed 
historically in Germanic. A theme of this work is the examination of 
changes in which the realization of functional categories shifts from 
inflectional morphology to syntax. This literature provides empirical 
evidence that structural change does occur and has important 
implications for what comes under the purview of grammaticalization 
studies. For Roberts and Roussou, grammaticalization is defined as the 
creation of new functional material through the reanalysis of lexical 
material or existing functional material. Just like onomasiological 
categories (e.g., relational noun) in the model of grammaticalization 
in Lehmann (1985), the universal architecture of functional projections 
constitutes the preexisting landscape across which grammaticalization 
drags functional and lexical elements. If Kiparsky et al. are correct, 
though, the definition of grammaticalization must be extended to 
include the establishment of new functional categories (as in Lehmann 
1993). 

What about Roberts and Roussou's learnability argument; i.e., that 
structural change is hard to account for? First, this is an argument 
from ignorance, a mode of argumentation that is weak at best. Second, 
there is no real reason to think that existing learning algorithms 
could not deal with structural change, if we put Roberts and Roussou's 
assumptions about a universally invariant clausal architecture aside. 
For example, much like the LFG literature described above, Bobaljik and 
Thrainsson (1998) provide evidence that languages vary along the Split-
IP Parameter: languages with a positive setting for this parameter have 
an AgrSP and TP as separate functional projections whereas languages 
with a negative settting are characterized by an unsplit IP. Third, 
Roberts and Roussou do not propose a formal learning algorithm 
themselves, apart from e.g. some brief discussion of Clark and Roberts 
(1993) in Chapter 1 (pgs 14-15) and some discussion of how the 
simplicity metric for parameter values accounts for unidirectionality 
in Chapter 5. Until this kind of work is done, it is difficult to 
assess the viability of Roberts and Roussou's arguments against 
structural change or their arguments for parametric change.

B. Morphology and syntactic acquisition 

The causal factor in many of the changes that Roberts and Roussou 
examine is claimed to be morphological. For example, they key the 
development of English modals to the loss the infinitive marker ''-en'' 
in early English (pg. 42). Likewise, the development of the English 
infinitival marker ''to'' is said to be caused by the loss of subjunctive 
morphology (pg. 107). For Roberts and Roussou, morphology is a cue for 
marked syntactic structures, where a marked structure is one where a 
lexical item spells out more than one feature. Movement is an example 
of a marked syntactic structure. In (1), the lexical item Y realizes 
the features associated with a low head (V) and a higher functional 
head (T):

(1) [_TP Y + T [_VP ... t_Y ...]]

 Change occurs when this cue for this marked structure has become 
obscure or ambiguous; e.g., by morphophonological change, as in the 
case of the development of English modals. Roberts and Roussou assume 
that the language learner is the locus of change and variation. Do 
language learners really use overt morphology as cues for the 
acquisition of syntax? Work on acquisition suggests that the claim that 
morphology drives syntactic acquisition is, at least, questionable. For 
example, there is some evidence that children know whether verbs raise 
or not before they acquire morphological distinctions; see e.g. 
Lardiere (2000) (cited in Bobaljik 2002). 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that morphology cues syntax. In 
order for this to work, we need to have a model of the morphology-
syntax interface. Roberts and Roussou seem to be advocating a 
morphology-driven approach in which variation in morphology is the 
cause of syntactic variation (Borer 1984). However, there is no 
explicit connection made between their approach and work like 
Rohrbacher (1999), which gives a related account. In contrast, in 
certain realizational approaches to morphosyntax (e.g., the Late-
Insertion model of Bobaljik and Thrainsson 1998, Bobaljik 2002, 
Thrainsson 2003), morphology is a reflection, rather than a 
determinant, of syntactic structure, and is licensed by the same 
syntactic elements that determine, for example, (lack of) movement. In 
this type of approach, morphology may provide a cue to syntax, but 
there may also be other non-morphological cues (e.g., the position of 
certain elements). Unfortunately, Roberts and Roussou do not address 
this type of model. In order to have a truly explanatory model of the 
relationship between morphology and the acquisition of syntax, it will 
be necessary to more fully spell out their model of the syntax-
morphology interface, and deal directly with the evidence from 
acquisition cited above. 

C. Lexical splits

A lexical split refers to a situation where a functional head is paired 
with a formally identical (lexical or functional) head. For example, in 
Standard English, ''need'' and ''dare'' function as either auxiliaries or 
transitive verbs (pg. 43). Roberts and Roussou derive lexical splits in 
two ways. For functional heads paired with other functional heads 
(e.g., the complementizer ''that'' and the demonstrative ''that''), 
different readings attributed to a single lexical item correspond to 
different positions in which the lexical item can be merged in clause 
structure. For functional heads paired with lexical heads (e.g., the 
auxiliary ''need'' and the transitive verb ''need''), the account is 
roughly similar. Differences in interpretation correspond to position 
in phrase structure, as well as the presence or absence of argument 
structure: lexical heads have argument structure but functional heads 
do not. This analysis has a couple of nice properties. First, it 
satisfies the desire for parsimony: for functional heads, it is not 
necessary to posit a separate lexical item for each interpretation. 
Second, Roberts and Roussou account for the gradualness of 
grammaticalization by positing that lexical clines are a consequence of 
lexical splits.

It is not clear how Roberts and Roussou's analysis works out formally, 
though. Consider the difference between lexical and functional heads. 
Roberts and Roussou do not give a detailed description of argument 
structure at the level of individual lexical items. This is an 
unfortunate gap given that the presence vs. absence of argument 
structure is one of the key distinctions between lexical and functional 
heads in their approach. More generally, Roberts and Roussou give 
neither a formal specification of what features lexical entries consist 
of nor even a single complete lexical entry. The closest they come is 
an informal discussion of the makeup of the lexical entries for ''want'' 
and the reduced auxiliary '''ll'' (pg. 230). 

The lack of formal specification for lexical entries also makes it 
difficult to compare the consequences of Roberts and Roussou's approach 
to lexical splits with that of other approaches; e.g., Construction 
Grammar (Fillmore 1999, Fillmore and Kay 1999). In Construction 
Grammar, it is possible to allot aspects of meaning to a construction 
(a pairing of form and meaning) rather than to the words making it up. 
In that way, it is not necessary to say that all functional elements 
are assigned a meaning (Zwicky 2000) or to posit spurious homophonic 
elements. The Construction Grammar account of lexical splits is roughly 
similar to Roberts and Roussou's account in which it is also not 
necessary to posit a separate lexical item for each interpretation of a 
functional head. Rather, as discussed above, differences in 
interpretation arise from different placements of the functional head 
in clause structure. An important project would be to explore the the 
different empirical ramifications of these two approaches to lexical 
splits. Unfortunately, Roberts and Roussou neither provide enough 
detail about the lexicon to make that comparison possible nor do they 
explore frameworks beyond the one that they are working in.

D. Language as a perfect system

As discussed above, the goal of Roberts and Roussou's book is to 
address two questions. First, they seek to address the question of 
syntactic change in the context of the Minimalist Program. Second, they 
intend to address a question raised by the Minimalist Program itself: 
how do we explain the existence of parametric variation and change when 
''language is in some sense a perfect system (the strong minimalist 
thesis: Chomsky (1995: 1-10), (2000:96f.), (2001:1-2))'' (pg. 1). 
Roberts and Roussou's answer to the second question, in short, is that 
parametric variation and change is a consequence of the imperfect 
mapping from syntax to PF.

Syntactic change and variation can only be understood as an 
imperfection if the assumption that language is perfect system is 
shared. Recent discussions of this assumption appear in Johnson and 
Lappin (1999: 124-133) and Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 
(Volume 18, Issue 4 and Volume 19, Issue 4). Roberts and Roussou do not 
refer to any of these discussions. This is unfortunate given that one 
of the two central questions of their book is predicated on the 
assumption that language is a perfect system. Without some kind of 
examination of this assumption, the question about how to explain the 
apparent imperfection of language change and variation will likely be a 
non-issue for some readers.

Of course, even if the a priori idea that language is a perfect system 
is not shared, we still need to provide an empirically accurate, 
simple, and nonredundant account of change and variation. For readers 
that do not share Roberts and Roussou's assumption about the optimal 
design of language, Roberts and Roussou's theory of parametric change 
and variation will be judged according to these criteria. The 
perfection or imperfection of language will ultimately play no role in 
deciding if Roberts and Roussou's theory makes any lasting 
contribution. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Peter Sells and Elizabeth Traugott for their comments. 
All remaining errors are my own.

REFERENCES

Austin, Peter and Joan Bresnan. (1996) Non-configurationality in 
Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistics 
Theory. 14(2): 215-268.

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. (2002) Realizing Germanic inflection: Why 
morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic 
Linguistics. 6(2): 129-167.

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Hoskulder Thrainsson. (1998) Two heads aren't 
always better than one. Syntax. 1: 195-236.

Borer, Hagit. (1984) Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. 

Bresnan, Joan. (2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell 
Publishers.

Chomsky, Noam. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Roger 
Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays 
on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. (2001) Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 
Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. (1999) Adverbs and functional projections: A cross-
linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Condoravdi, Cleo and Paul Kiparsky. (2002) Clitics and Clause 
Structure. Journal of Greek Linguistics. 2: 1-39.

Dalrymple, Mary. (2001) Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: 
Academic Press.

Deo, Ashwini. (2001) The development of IP in Indo-Aryan. Unpublished 
manuscript. Stanford University.

Fillmore, Charles. (1999) Inversion and Constructional Inheritance. In 
Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig, and Andreas Kathol (eds), Lexical 
and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp. 113-128). 
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 

Fillmore, Charles and Paul Kay. (1999) Grammatical constructions and 
linguistic generalizations: the what's x doing y? construction. 
Language. 75: 1-33.

von Fintel, Kai. (1995) The formal semantics of grammaticalization. 
NELS 25: 175-189.

Grimshaw, Jane. (1997) Projections, heads and optimality. Linguistic 
Inquiry 28: 373-422.

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hunnemeyer. (1991) 
Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago, IL: University of 
Chicago Press.

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. (2003) Grammaticalization 
(Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Kemenade, Ans. (2000) Jespersen's Cycle Revisted: Formal Properties 
of Grammaticalization. In Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, and Anthony 
Warner (eds), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms (pp. 51-74). 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

King, Tracy H. (1995) Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford, 
CA: CSLI Publications.

Kiparsky, Paul. (1995) Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In A. 
Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change (pp. 
140-170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. (1997) The Rise of Positional Licensing. In Ans van 
Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change 
(pp. 460-494). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kroeger, Paul. (1993) Phrase structure and grammatical relations in 
Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 

Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin. (1999) Local Constraints Vs. 
Economy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Lardiere, Donna. (2000) Mapping features to forms in second language 
acquisition. In John Archibald (ed), Second Language Acquisition and 
Linguistic Theory (pp. 102-129). Oxford: Blackwell.

Lehmann, Christian. (1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and 
Diachronic Change. Lingua e Stile. 20: 303-318.

Lehmann, Christian. (1993) Theoretical implications of 
grammaticalization phenomena. In William A. Foley (ed), The Role of 
Theory in Language Description (pp. 315-340). Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter.

Lightfoot, David W. (1991) How to Set Parameters: Arguments from 
Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lightfoot, David W. (1999) The Development of Language: Acquisition, 
Change, and Evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Martin, Roger and Juan Uriagereka. (2000) Some Posible Foundations of 
the Minimalist Program. In Roger Martin, David Micahels, and Juan 
Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of 
Howard Lasnik (pp. 1-29). Cambrdige, MA: MIT Press.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998) Language Form and Language Function. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.

Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. (1999) A formal approach to 
''grammaticalization''. Linguistics. 37(6): 1011-1041.

Rohrbacher, Bernhard. (1999) Morphology-Driven Syntax: A theory of V to 
I raising and prodrop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sells, Peter. (1995) Korean and Japanese Morphology from a Lexical 
Perspective. Linguistic Inquiry. 26(2): 277-325.

Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. (1998) Structural scope 
expansion and grammaticalization. In Anna Gicalone Ramat and Paul J. 
Hopper (eds), The Limits of Grammaticalization (pp. 229-272). 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Thrainsson, Hoskulder. (2003) Syntactic Variation, Historical 
Development, and Minimalism. In Randall Hendrick (ed), Minimalist 
Syntax (pp. 152-191). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2003) From etymology to historical 
pragmatics. In Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell (eds), Studies in the 
History of the English Language: A Millenial Perspective (pp. 19-29). 
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vincent, Nigel. (1997) The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Ans 
van Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds), Parameters of Morphosyntactic 
Change (pp. 149-169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warner, Anthony R. (1993) English Auxiliaries: Structure and history. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zwicky, Arnold. (2000) Constructions and morphological categories. 
Handout. Stanford University.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Brady Clark is a PhD student in linguistics at Stanford University, 
where he is involved in several research projects in historical 
linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, and tutorial dialogue systems. He 
received his BA in linguistics from the University of Washington in 
1997. 
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue