Mon Jul 25 2005

Review: Historical Ling/Syntax: Fuss & Trips (2004)

Editor for this issue: Megan Zdrojkowski <>


        1.    Brady Clark, Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar

Message 1: Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar
Date: 24-Jul-2005
From: Brady Clark <>
Subject: Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar

EDITORS: Fuss, Eric and Trips, Carola
TITLE: Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar
SERIES: Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 72  
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2004
Announced at

Brady Clark, Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University.


There is a long tradition in linguistics of diachronic explanations for 
synchronic phenomena (e.g. Paul 1880, Greenberg 1966 [1963], Givon 1971, 
1975, 1976, Bybee 1985, Garrett 1990, Aristar 1991, Alexiadou and Fanselow 
2001, 2002, Keenan 2003, Kiparsky 2005). The papers in the collection 
under review apply this particular mode of explanation to synchronic 
morphosyntactic phenomena, utilizing the descriptive devices of formal 
syntactic theory. A consistent theme throughout the collection is the use 
of the notion of economy to explain particular cases of morphosyntactic 
change. Economy has played a major role in recent generative work on 
syntactic change, see Roberts and Roussou (2003) and van Gelderen (2004). 
I briefly address this notion in the critical evaluation below. On the 
whole, Fuss and Trips' collection makes novel empirical and theoretical 
contributions to the literature, and will be of interest to historical 

It is important to highlight the fact that this volume is focused solely 
on historical morphosyntax, despite what its very general title suggests. 
Readers interested in diachronic explanations for synchronic phonological, 
semantic, or pragmatic phenomena should look elsewhere. Further, all of 
the papers are embedded in the Principles and Parameters tradition 
(Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). For recent historical morphosyntax work in the 
Lexical-Functional Grammar tradition see the superb collection edited by 
Butt and King (2001).

In what follows, I give a description of each of the papers in the volume. 
Each description is immediately followed by a critical evaluation.


Introduction (Eric Fuss and Carola Trips):
In their introduction, Fuss and Trips give an overview of the generative 
approach to diachronic phenomena, focusing in particular on the work of 
Lightfoot (1979), Kroch (1989), and Roberts (1993). In this work, 
differences between historical stages of a single language are treated in 
terms of parametric differences. Syntactic change is described in terms of 
a change that affects that parameter values for a given language. 
Following this overview, Fuss and Trips discuss the apparent conflict 
between the gradualness of language change and the notion of parametric 
change. They argue that this conflict is resolved if the linguistic 
competence of speakers during periods of change involves command over more 
than one internalized grammar (Santorini 1989, Pintzuk 1999, Kroch 2001). 
Next, they survey work that argues that certain synchronic phenomena do 
not reflect principles of universal grammar, but rather are the result of 
either the way that syntactic change proceeds in general, or a specific 
syntactic change. 

For readers unfamiliar with recent generative work on diachronic syntax, 
Fuss and Trips' introduction is a good entry point to this literature and 
serves as decent background for the rest of the collection. However, Fuss 
and Trips obscure some important differences between the approaches they 
discuss. For example, as noted below, Kroch and Lightfoot propose very 
different models of syntactic change. Lightfoot (e.g. 1999) has argued 
that syntactic change occurs when the frequency of use of a given sentence 
type rises above some critical threshold, i.e. reanalysis is late. Kroch 
has argued against this view (e.g. 2001), providing evidence that suggests 
that reanalysis is early. Further, Fuss and Trips give rather short shrift 
to diachronic explanations for synchronic phenomena outside of the 
generative tradition. Their heavy focus on Principles and Parameters work 
overshadows the important contribution of non-generative work. For 
example, as Fuss and Trips note, there is a long tradition (e.g. Greenberg 
1966 [1963], Vennemann 1973, Givon (1971, 1975, 1976)) of diachronic 
explanations for word order correlations. It would have been helpful to 
discuss how recent diachronic explanations for syntactic change improve 
upon earlier work by non-generativists.

On the development of possessive determiners: Consequences for DP 
structure (Artemis Alexiadou):
Alexiadou argues that an examination of the diachronic development of 
possessive elements in English, German, and French provides insights into 
the structure of possessive DPs synchronically. Drawing upon Cardinaletti 
and Starke's work (Cardinaletti and Starke 1999, Cardinaletti 1998) work 
on possessive and personal pronouns, Alexiadou argues that weak adjectival 
possessives were the source of English clitic possessive determiners (as 
in "my book"). Further, Alexiadou claims that this shift is an example 
of the grammaticalization pathway strong > weak > clitic. 

The bulk of generative work on properties of pronoun systems has relied 
upon synchronic evidence. In contrast, Alexiadou utilizes diachronic data 
from English, German, and French to support Cardinaletti and Starke's 
inventory of pronoun types. For this reason, Alexiadou's paper should be 
read by both historical syntacticians and analysts interested in pronoun 
systems. The perspective of this paper is slightly different from the rest 
of the volume. Alexiadou's main aim is to support Cardinaletti and 
Starke's tripartite formal distinction between possessive pronouns (strong 
vs. weak vs. clitic) by using evidence from diachrony. This distinction is 
not taken to be a consequence of converging specific language changes 
(compare Givon's work on word order correlations cited above), nor is 
Alexiadou arguing that diachronic evidence should be used to alter formal 
analyses of possessive pronouns "that resist analysis in purely 
synchronic terms" (pg. 19). In contrast, most of the other papers in the 
volume attempt to explain particular synchronic phenomena in terms of 
specific cases of language change.

Diachronic clues to pro-drop and complementizer agreement in Bavarian 
(Eric Fuss): 
The primary goal of Fuss's paper is to provide a diachronic explanation 
for the puzzling fact that pro-drop and complementizer agreement are 
limited to second person (and, for some varieties, first singular) 
contexts in Bavarian. Fuss argues that both syntactic and morphological 
factors enabled the reanalysis of certain subject clitics as verbal 
agreement. Inversion contexts with V-to-C movement facilitated the 
reanalysis of subject enclitics as agreement morphemes. This reanalysis is 
schematized in (1) (pg. 79): a clitic in the head of DP ("Dclit") is 
reanalyzed as an agreement morpheme ("AGR"). 

[CP Topic [C' C+Vfin [TP [DP_i Dclit.] [T' t_i]]]] >
[CP Topic [C' [C [C+Vfin] [AGR]] [TP pro_i [T' t_i]]]]

However, syntax alone cannot explain why pro-drop and complementizer 
agreement are limited to second person (and first singular, in some 
varieties). Fuss provides evidence that suggests that this restriction was 
a consequence of blocking effects that prefer new verbal agreement 
morphology to be more specific than existing morphology. 

Fuss marshals a range of different types of diachronic evidence to explain 
a surprising synchronic constraint on Bavarian. Further, his mode of 
explanation is a neat display of how Distributed Morphology (Halle and 
Marantz 1993) might be utilized in diachronic explanations for synchronic 

There are two aspects of Fuss' analysis that need further development. 
First, Fuss suggests that economy principles might explain the reanalysis 
in (1), as well as the restriction of pro-drop and complementizer 
agreement to second person and first singular (77-78, 85). For the 
reanalysis in (1), Fuss suggests that a preference for simpler structures 
may be at play (Clark and Roberts 1993). For the person/number 
restrictions, Fuss argues that language learners prefer more specific, 
more marked lexical entries over less marked ones, guaranteeing an 
optimal, non-redundant lexicon. Fuss ties these hypotheses to recent work 
in the generative tradition (e.g. Roberts and Roussou 2003) that assumes 
that these preferences should be explained in terms of domain-specific 
innate biases on language learners. Fuss does not explore alternative 
explanations for apparent economy effects that do not ascribe domain-
specific innate biases to the learner. For example, the apparent 
preference for simpler structures could be a consequence of processing 
biases (see e.g. Hawkins (1994, 2004), Kirby 1999, Wasow 2002). 

Second, Fuss invokes several constraints on reanalysis. For example, 
consider the constraint in (2) (pg. 78):

(2) Preservation of argument structure: The reanalysis of a pronoun as an 
agreement marker must preserve the predicate's argument structure.

What is the status of this constraint? Is it a constraint on the language 
learner, i.e. an innate bias of the sort discussed above? If so, it is 
unclear where or how it applies. If the language learner has not yet 
learned a predicate's argument structure, how could the learner preserve 
it? If (2) is not a constraint on the language learner, what is it a 
constraint on? As such, constraints like (2) are descriptive observations 
about reanalysis that are in need of deeper explanation. 

Syntactic effects of inflectional morphology (Eric Haeberli):
It has long been observed that there is a relationship between 
inflectional morphology and syntactic variation. For example, many 
researchers have attributed cross-linguistic positional variation in the 
finite verb to variation in the domain of agreement morphology (Roberts 
1985, Pollock 1989, Rohrbacher 1994, among others). Haeberli focuses on 
two phenomena that have been claimed to be constrained by a relationship 
between morphology and syntax: the distribution of subjects and adjuncts 
in subject-verb inversion and the order of arguments. For the order of 
arguments, rich case marking on nominal constituents tends to go along 
with free word order. This correlation can be observed diachronically. 
Sapir (1921: 168) refers to "the drift toward abolition of most case 
distinctions and the correlative drift toward position as an all-important 
grammatical method." However, variable word order has been shown to occur 
independently of rich case morphology, e.g. in the history of English 
(Koopman 1994, Allen 1995). Haeberli proposes that correlations between 
syntactic variation and variation in inflectional morphology that appear 
problematic from a purely synchronic point of view can be explained if 
diachrony is taken into account. His proposal has two components. First, 
the relationship between morphology and syntactic phenomena is mediated by 
syntactic features. Second, apparent mismatches between morphology and 
syntactic phenomena are indicative of a transitional stage of the language 
in which morphology has been lost but syntactic features remain. Over 
time, the more "economical" grammar in which the syntactic feature is not 
maintained drives out the less "economical" grammar in which the 
syntactic feature is. 

Haeberli's paper is an interesting attempt to salvage the idea that there 
are systematic explanations for syntactic variation in terms of 
inflectional morphology, despite synchronic counterexamples. Like Kiparsky 
(1997), Haeberli suggests that mismatches between morphology and syntax 
can be explained by the mediation of another linguistic level. For 
Haeberli, this level involves syntactic features and the syntactic 
structures those features project. In order to explain the gradual loss of 
grammars that involve a mismatch between syntax and morphology, Haeberli, 
like Fuss, invokes the notion of economy: Children disprefer grammars for 
which syntactic structures contain elements that are not required by the 

Without this bias, Haeberli cannot explain why syntactic change usually 
follows the loss of morphology. As with Fuss' paper, Haeberli's 
(tentative) invocation of economy is a missed opportunity to explore 
explanations that do not invoke domain-specific innate biases. Instead, 
Haeberli simply stipulates a preference for simpler grammars in the 
language acquisition device. 

Language change versus grammar change: What diachronic data reveal about 
the distinction between core grammar and periphery (Roland Hinterholzl):
Syntactic change proceeds in a gradual fashion. For example, the shift 
from OV to VO in early English involved intratextual and intertextual 
variability between these two orders at all stages of the change (Pintzuk 
1999). Hinterholzl employs the distinction between core and periphery to 
explain gradual syntactic change. Specifically, Hinterholzl claims that 
base word order and unmarked word order must be distinguished. He argues 
that language change is caused by the rise of certain peripheral 
(stylistic) rules that are exploited by speakers for communicative 
purposes. Peripheral rules lead to a marked prosodic output, which, when 
crossing a certain frequency threshold in their use, are reinterpreted as 
rules of core grammar. 

There are a several problems with Hinterholzl's approach. Hinterholzl, 
like Lightfoot (1991, 1999), assumes that parametric change results when 
the frequency with which a certain sentence type is used rises above some 
critical threshold. As Kroch (2001: 702) points out in his review of 
Lightfoot's frequentistic approach, this type of account "depends on a 
fragile assumption; namely, on the existence of directionally consistent 
drifts in usage over long periods of time that are unconnected to grammar 
change." There is little evidence for such drifts. Further, marginal 
options can be passed on from generation to generation (Santorini 1989: 
134). Hinterholzl fails to address either of these concerns in any detail. 

The bulk of Hinterholzl's paper is a critique of the competing grammars 
account, in which word order variation follows from the coexistence of 
competing grammars. According to Hinterholzl, the main problem with 
competing grammars accounts is that they cannot explain how language 
internal factors such as information structure requirements are integrated 
into the model. However, this is no more than an argument from ignorance 
given that Hinterholzl does not attempt to extend the competing grammars 
model. An interesting research project would be to extend the competing 
grammars model that Yang (2002) presents to account for the interactions 
Hinterholzl discusses.

Lastly, Hinterholzl completely mischaracterizes earlier accounts (e.g. 
Pintzuk 1999) of the OV to VO shift in early English when he writes (pg. 
139) that it is a central assumption of these approaches that "VO orders 
are an [Early Middle English] innovation that was brought about by 
language contact between Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavian settlers in the 
10th century". This is a misreading of the literature. First, Pintzuk 
(1999) (among others) discusses evidence that strongly suggests that VO 
orders were already present in Old English. Second, nobody takes it as 
uncontroversial that the OV to VO shift in early English was a consequence 
of language contact with Scandinavian. 

The EPP, fossilized movement and reanalysis (Andrew Simpson): 
Simpson discusses postverbal modal constructions in Thai, Taiwanese, and 
Cantonese. In these languages a single modal meaning 'to be able' appears 
in post-verbal position. This is unexpected since modal verbs otherwise 
occur in preverbal position in these languages. Simpson provides evidence 
that suggests that in Thai this construction is constrained by focus 
interpretation. In contrast, postverbal modal constructions in Taiwanese 
and Cantonese do not have a clear semantic or pragmatic motivation 
synchronically. Simpson argues that a purely formal syntactic mechanism, 
EPP features, licenses the postverbal modal construction in these 
languages after the semantic, pragmatic, and/or morphological trigger was 

Simpson's paper is an important contribution to the historical 
morphosyntax literature on southeast Asian languages, and will be of 
interest to historical linguists working on those languages. Simpson 
succeeds nicely in drawing important consequences for syntactic theory, 
namely the idea that there are purely formal syntactic EPP features that 
drive movement. Unfortunately, Simpson does not address some of the recent 
work that has argued that there are no uninterpretable functional 
categories or features (Roberts and Roussou 1999, Roberts and Roussou 
2003). Further, Simpson seems to assume that focus interacts directly with 
word order. This assumption is not uncontroversial. For example, Buring 
(2001) argues that focus interacts with prosodic phrasing, which in turn 
interacts with word order. Lastly, Simpson's analysis depends greatly on 
how focus is characterized. Unfortunately, Simpson does not engage the 
focus or information structure literature at all, apart from Zubizaretta 

Restructuring and the development of functional categories (Zoe Wu): 
Synchronically, the resultative verb construction in Chinese involves 
secondary verbal elements that signal the result or termination of the 
action denoted by the primary verbal element. This construction has the 
form schematized in (1) (pg. 192):

(3) Subject V1 V2 (Object)

Wu proposes that the historical development of this construction helps 
explain the morphosyntactic structure and interpretation of these verbal 
clusters synchronically. First, the source of the secondary verbal element 
in the resultative construction (V2 in (3)) was lexical elements that were 
reanalyzed as functional heads. Wu argues that the semantic interpretation 
of the resultative verb constructions highlights the telic property of V2 
in (3). As a consequence, this property of V2 gained greater importance 
than V2's lexical content.  Second, the resultative construction underwent 
a word order change: V1 NPobject V2 > V1 V2 NPobject. Wu argues that this 
word order change was a consequence of the interaction between a learning 
preference for uniform headedness and the frequent occurrence of the V1-V2 

Wu's article will be of interest to both historical syntacticians and 
linguists interested in resultatives cross-linguistically. As with some of 
the other papers in the volume, economy is invoked as an explanation for 
word order change, but, unlike other papers in the volume, Wu proposes 
that the word order change described above is a consequence of the 
INTERACTION between a bias for uniform headedness and changes in the 
learning data. Kiparsky (1996) provides evidence that suggests that a 
similar type of interaction explains the shift from OV to VO in English. 
It would be particularly interesting to see if this word order change can 
be explained in terms of work (Hawkins (1994, 2004),
Kirby 1999) that attempts to explain the preference for uniform 
directionality of heads in terms of parsing complexity, rather than a 
domain-specific innate bias. 

As noted above, a primary focus of Wu's article is the aspectual 
properties of the secondary verb in the Chinese resultative verb 
construction. Recent work on the resultative construction (in English and 
other languages) has also explored the semantics and pragmatics of this 
construction, including its aspectual properties (e.g. Levin and Rappaport 
Hovav 2004). Wu does not discuss this work, or much of the broader 
resultatives literature at all (e.g. Goldberg 1995, Jackendoff 1990). 


As noted in the introduction, this is a fine collection. Historical 
morphosyntacticians will find much of interest in the volume, both in 
terms of novel empirical contributions and theoretical innovations. The 
collection would have been much stronger if the authors had attempted to 
show in detail why utilizing current formal descriptive tools takes us 
further than earlier accounts (e.g. Givon 1971, 1975, 1976) in explaining 
synchrony via diachrony.

One theme runs through the book. Several of the papers (Fuss, Haeberli, 
Wu), invoke the notion of economy to explain change. A shared assumption 
in the collection seems to be that economy preferences are domain-specific 
innate biases on language learners (see also van Gelderen 2004). A crucial 
next step would be to address the growing literature that suggests that 
universal properties of language can be explained in terms of parsing 
biases (Hawkins (1994, 2004), Kirby 1999) or even general non-linguistic 
biases (Christiansen and Kirby 2003: 278-282). 


Alexiadou, Artemis and Gilbert Fanselow. 2001. Laws of diachrony as a 
source for syntactic generalisations: The case of V to I. Glow Newsletter. 
46: 57-58.

Alexiadou, Artemis and Gilbert Fanselow. 2002. On the correlation between 
morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I. In J.-W. Zwart and W. Abraham 
(eds), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax (pp. 219-242). Amsterdam: 
John Benjamins.

Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations 
from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Aristar, Anthony R. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic patterns: 
an investigation into the origin of linguistic universals. Language. 67: 1-33. 

Buring, Daniel. 2001. Let's Phrase It! - Focus, Word Order, and Prosodic 
Phrasing in German Double Object Constructions. In Mueller, G. & W. 
Sternefeld (eds), Competition in Syntax (pp. 69-105). Berlin & New York: 
de Gruyter.

Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (eds). 2001. Time over Matter: 
Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive 
systems." In Artemis Alexiadou and C. Wilder (eds), Possessors, Predicates 
and Movement in the DP (pp. 17-53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cardinaletti, Anna and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural 
deficiency: A case study of the classes of pronouns. In H. van Riemsdijk 
(ed), Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 145-233). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and 
parameters. In J. Jacobs et al. (eds.) Syntax: An International Handbook 
of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1 (pp. 506-569). Walter de Gruyter.

Clark. Robin and Ian Roberts. 1993. A computational model of language 
learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry. 24: 299-345.

Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language. 66: 

Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins Publishing Company. 

Givon, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an 
archaeologist's field trips. Proceedings from the Seventh Regional Meeting 
of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 394-415.

Givon, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In 
Charles Li (ed), Word order and word order change (pp. 47-112). Austin: 
University of Texas Press.

Givon, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles 
Li (ed), Subject and Topic (pp. 149-188). New York: Academic Press. 

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to 
Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966 [1963]. Some Universals of Grammar with 
Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Universals of 
Language (pp. 73-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halle, Morris and Alex Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the 
pieces of inflection. In Samuel J. Keyser and Kenneth Hale (eds), The View 
from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger 
(pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. 
London: Allen and Unwin.

Keenan, Edward. 2003. A historical explanation of some Binding theoretical 
facts in English. In John Moore and Maria Polinsky (eds), The Nature of 
Explanation in Linguistic Theory (pp. 152-189). Stanford, CA: CSLI 

Kirby, Simon. 1999. Function, Selection, and Innateness. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.

Kirby, Simon and Morten H. Christiansen. From Language Learning to 
Language Evolution. In Morten H. Christiansen and Simon Kirby (eds), 
Language Evolution (pp. 272-294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. The Shift to Head-Initial VP in Germanic. In 
Hoskulder Thrainsson, Samuel David Epstein and Steve Peter (eds), Studies 
in Comparative Germanic Syntax II (pp. 140-179). Dordrecht: Kluwer 
Academic Publishers.

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. 

Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Universals constrain change; change results in 
typological generalizations. Stanford University.

Koopman, Willem. 1994. The order of dative and accusative objects in Old 
English. Ms., University of Amsterdam.

Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. 
Language Variation and Change. 1: 199-244.

Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins 
(eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (pp. 699-730). 
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2004. The Semantic Determinants of 
Argument Expression: A View from the English Resultative Construction. In 
J. Gu'eron and J. Lecarme (eds), The Syntax of Time (pp. 477-494). 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.

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

Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change 
and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.

Paul, Hermann. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer. 

Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and 
Change in Old English Word Order. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic 
Inquiry. 3: 21-58.

Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English 
modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 3. 21-58. 

Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of 
English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 

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

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

Rohrbacher, B. 1994. The Germanic languages and the full paradigm: A 
theory of V-to-I raising. Doctoral dissertation, University of 
Massachusetts, Amherst.

Santorini, Beatrice. 1989. The Generalization of the Verb Second 
Constraint in the History of Yiddish. Doctoral dissertation, University of 

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New 
York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Yang, Charles D. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.

Zubizaretta, Maria L.. 1998. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press. 


Brady Clark is a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in linguistics at Northwestern 
University, where he is involved in several research projects in 
historical linguistics, semantics, and pragmatics. He received his BA in 
linguistics from the University of Washington in 1997 and his PhD in 
linguistics from Stanford University in 2004.