Contrasting contexts of language contact in synchrony and diachrony
1. Preamble. Our project sets out to investigate the limits and the extent to which language contact affects the syntactic structure of Romanian. Our proposal has several novel elements. First, we investigate three distinct types of well-delineated language-contact settings: (a) vertical contact (in the terminology of Dahl 2001): Old Church Slavonic–Romanian contact in the early phase of Romanian (especially 16th and 17th centuries); (b) long-term (Romanian-Russian) bilingualism in the Lipovan community of Dobrudja (Rom. Dobrogea); (c) the Balkan Sprachbund. Significantly, an important proportion of the model languages which exert influence on Romanian are from the Slavonic family. Second, besides the empirical and theoretical relevance of our research (as detailed below), we propose two methodological changes of perspective, which single out this project in comparison to other lines of inquiry: (a) we focus in detail on a single language (Romanian) and undertake an in-depth analysis of how (a set of) its syntactic structures have been affected by language contact; (b) rather than setting as our ultimate goal the compilation of a list of features (the “feature list” method deemed in recent scholarship a ‘mechanical, feature-counting and checking’ approach by McMahon, Matras & Vincent 2006: xvii), we set out to undertake extensive analyses of particular phenomena; focusing on specific phenomena and the processes that underlie them and their diffusion promises to offer a finer-grained understanding of how language contact changes language structure.
Here we make a distinction between contact,which represents a situation (very often a catalyst for language change) (Harris & Campbell 1995: 122), and the effects of contact, i.e. the phenomena which result as a consequence of language contact and the grammatical processes that underlie them (see point 3 below). In points 2 and 3 we lay out a minimal background on the views and reported effects of language contact in syntax, which puts into perspective the specifics of our project.
2. Views on the effects of language contact in syntax. Exploration of the effects of language contact in syntax is particularly relevant as the literature reports diametrically opposing views on this issue. At one end of the scale (e.g. Trask 1996, Heine & Kuteva 2005, 2006, Backus, Doğruöz & Heine 2011: 745 i.a.), contact is claimed to have important effects on syntactic structure, an idea best captured by Trask (1996: 315): “centuries of contact between languages can lead to a particularly striking result: several neighbouring but unrelated languages can come to share a number of structural properties with one another, properties which they do not share with their closest genetic relatives elsewhere”. At the other end of the scale, there are authors (e.g. Oksaar 1972, Winford 2003: 97, Sankoff 2002, Montrul 2004, Sanchez 2004, Silva-Corvalán 2008, Bybee 2015) according to whom language contact has a reduced influence on deep structural properties, a view best captured by the following quotation in Sankoff (2002: 658): “morphology and syntax are clearly the domains of linguistic structure least susceptible to the influence of contact, and this statistical generalization in not vitiated by a few exceptional cases”. Classical authors like Meillet, Sapir or Jakobson also held this view; Meillet (1914: 84, 86-87) proposed a very restricted approach to contact-induced syntactic change, believing it possible only when the grammatical systems of the languages in contact are already closely related, and hence very similar (e.g. dialects of the same language), a view further supported, among others, by Sapir (1921: 203, 217), Jakobson (1938: 241) and Allen (1980: 380). Harris & Campbell (1995: 120) best summarize this state of affairs (they use borrowing as an umbrella term for all language contact phenomena): “Current views range from the extremes on the one hand, that syntactic borrowing is either impossible or very rare, to on the other hand fanciful explanations that all otherwise unexplained syntactic eccentricities in a language may be due to foreign influence” (cf. also Weinreich 1953, Heine & Kuteva 2005).
3. Reported effects of language contact. As highlighted in more recent literature, the effects of language contact in the syntactic domain are not limited to borrowing, but may also involve other processes such as: hybridization, convergence (progressive structural assimilation) (Hickey 2010), changes through reanalysis and extension (Harris and Campbell 1995), interference of syntactic patterns, contact-induced grammaticalization, restructuring (loss and rearrangement), polysemy copying (Kuteva 2017) (for reservations with respect to contact-induced grammaticalization, see Bybee 2015: 254). The degree to which these are distinct processes in a coarse typology rather than overlapping terminologies which roughly cover similar processes remains to be established in the project. Contact does not necessarily lead to structural simplification (Gumperz & Wilson 1971, Trudgill 1983, 2001, 2001, 2004: 467f, Bisang 1996: 350, Silva-Corvalán 1994: 3-6, 2008:214-216); phenomena of structural diversification and complexification of grammar are also encountered, especially in cases of long-term contact accompanied by childhood bilingualism (Kuteva 2017). Heine & Kuteva (2005: 172) also speak of grammaticalization areas, which are “the result of one and the same historical process, more specifically, of the same process of grammaticalization, even if there may be other properties in addition”, typically occurring in Sprachbunds. Furthermore, Harris & Campbell (1995: 122-137) put together a review of the proposed universals concerning grammatical borrowing through language contact, scrutinizing issues such as The Structural-Compatibility Requirement or claims like “grammatical gaps tend to get filled through borrowing”; typological distance (cf. Dimmendal 1998: 89, 95) and the Resistance Principle (Guardiano et al. 2016) have been also addressed more recently.
4. Romanian in three language contact settings. We believe that the choice of three distinct settings to explore the effects of language contact on the syntax of Romanian represents a fertile testbed for identifying a very broad spectrum of contact phenomena and for determining which types of contact may actually trigger profound changes in the grammatical structure of a given language, and which types do not. Bi- or multilingualism is, one way or another, at play in all these cases, yet each context has distinguishing properties which play a role in the weight and range of the effects of contact on the syntactic structure of Romanian. Factors which shape the particularity of each contact setting include social conditioning, duration, intensity of bi-/multilingualism. Direct evidence for the claim that distinct language contact settings may lead to distinct changes is supported by the fact that phenomena reported in the lists in point 5 below for each type of contact situation are different.
(a) Vertical contact (Dahl 2001): the influence of Old Church Slavonic (= OCS) on old Romanian. As is well known, many old Romanian texts (especially from 16th and 17th centuries) are religious (and, to a lesser extent, legal) translations of OCS texts. Furthermore, the official language in Wallachian and Moldavian chancelleries was OCS (see Timotin 2016). Thus, most Romanian writings dating back to the 16th c. and a relevant number of 17th c. texts are heavily influenced by OCS. Our project focuses on this particular setting. Crucially, however, OCS is not the only form of Slavonic influence on Romanian: Slavonic idioms have exerted influence on Romanian ever since the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans (see Cihac 1870, Petrovici 1943, Rosetti 1968, Densusianu 1961, Tagliavini 1972). Due to the lack of Romanian texts prior to 1500 (Romanian words are only accidentally found in Slavonic documents before this date), an examination of the syntax of the pre-1500 period is not possible. The empirical material on which we base our research for this particular contact setting is represented by old Romanian translations from OCS, set in contrast with texts written directly in Romanian, translations with other sources (e.g. Latin, Hungarian), as well as the original OCS texts (to the extent that these are available). Given the nature of the texts involved (religious and legal), ‘prestige’ plays an important role in borrowing/replication; thus, the diamesic dimension of linguistic variation is at play since we are dealing, at least initially, with contact in the written medium alone.
(b) Long-term bilingualism (and diglossia): the bilingual Russian–Romanian Lipovan community in Dobrudja. A well-known bilingual Russian–Romanian community is found in Dobrudja. The migration of Lipovans in Dobrudja took place in several waves starting with the beginning of the 17th c. (see Prigarin 2007), gradually forming a compact community. Speakers in this community show both symmetrical and asymmetrical bilingualism. Russian is used in the family, at home, and Romanian as the official language of the community, hence this represents a case of bilingualism with diglossia, a situation which points towards significant diamesic differences as well. Speaking Russian has been an important means of maintaining a Lipovan identity; children still learn Russian and the language is still extensively used in the social life of the community. The empirical material on which we base our research for this particular contact setting is mainly represented by the corpus of Romanian spoken by Lipovans put together by Adnana Boioc Apintei during several fieldwork sessions in the Dobrudjan villages of Sarichioi, Jurilovca, and Carcaliu, complemented by other written sources.
(c) Contact in the setting of a Sprachbund: The Balkan Sprachbund is the first and probably the best examined linguistic area. The existence of a surprising number of structural commonalities between the Balkan languages has been given several explanations since the earliest days of Balkan linguistics: (i) substratum interference (Thracian, Dacian or Illyrian) (Kopitar 1829, Miklosich 1861, Weigand 1928), although shared traits developed in the post-Byzantine period; (ii) the influence of a language of prestige in the area, Greek for Sandfeld (1930) or Latin for Solta (1980); however, in Greek, the Balkan features are postclassical innovations and Latin exhibited almost none of the Balkan features. More recent scholarship (Comrie 1989, Linsted 2000, Joseph 2001, Friedman 2011) converges on the idea that language contact in the form of bi- and multilingualism in the area is responsible for the Balkan convergent features: “Sprachbund phenomena generally are attributed to language contact in some form. The exact nature of the contact that leads to a Sprachbund is often a matter of some controversy […] Nonetheless, contact in some form is invariably responsible (…)” (Joseph 2001: 19). Sherzer (1973) is the first to explicitly include contact in the definitional aspect of Sprachbunds; Thomason (2001: 99) formulates a definition of Sprachbunds on the basis of contact: “a linguistic area is a geographical region containing a group of three or more languages that share some structural features as a result of contact rather than as a result of accident or inheritance from a common ancestor”.
5. Syntactic features resulting from language contact for each of the settings presented above. Although we do not set as one of our goals the compilation of lists of features, this method represents a good heuristic for a starting point of our inquiry. The following lists present the linguistic phenomena and features which have been claimed to result from language contact, for each of the contact settings.
(a) Vertical contact (Old Church Slavonic – old Romanian); features compiled by Dragomirescu (2015) on the basis of previous scholarship: subject positions and nominal phrase-internal word order; clausal word order/verb positions; (non-)doubling of the direct and indirect objects; differential object marking with prepositional pe (< lexical p(r)e ‘on’); ellipsis of the copula a fi ‘be’; the predicative (i.e. main clause predicate) usage of the infinitive and of the gerund; emergence of the “short” infinitive (without the –re ending inherited from Latin); usage of the infinitive in contexts specific to the subjunctive; auxiliary and pronominal clitic inversion; scrambling and interpolation in compound verbal forms; absence of negative concord, i.e. simple negation, sporadically attested in 16th century texts; reflexive usage of many verbs; the dative indirect object/accusative direct object alternation.
(b) Long-term (Russian–Romanian) bilingualism; list of features and phenomena compiled by Boioc Apintei (2020 forthcoming) on the basis of fieldwork in the Lipovan community: absence of (in)definite article; fake locatives; variation involving the non-anaphoric reflexive morpheme; absence of the present tense form of a fi ‘be’ (with all its values: predicative, copulative or passive auxiliary); low verb movement; usage of the first person plural instead of the first person singular; atypical use of the adverb tot ‘also’; use of (pseudo)negation in non-specific free relatives and unconditionals; absence of clitic doubling; preference of overt subjects in unmarked sentences; headed relative clauses introduced by cine ‘who’ instead of the relative pronoun care ‘which’.
Significantly, certain phenomena occur in both contact settings (e.g. particular usages of the reflexive, the ellipsis of a fi ‘be’), which strengthens the hypothesis that they are the effects of language contact (Slavic influence on Romanian).
(c) Balkan Sprachbund features; glossing over the question of the precise inventory of the Balkan languages (see Miseska Tomic 2006: 35-45 for a review), the following list of features compiled by Mišeska Tomić (2006: 27) illustrates (morpho)syntactic Balkanisms: enclitic (postpositive) articles; dative-genitive merger/syncretism; distinct vocative case markers; locative-directional merger; prepositional cases; clitic doubling; dative-genitive clitic in the DP; subjunctives; analytic want futures; analytic want future-in-the-past; have perfects; have past perfects; evidentials. These represent the features generally accepted in Balkan scholarship (Mišeska Tomić 2006: 26 also reviews the inventory of Balkan features as discussed by individual authors). To these features, we may add the structures featuring verb-auxiliary inversion and the dual complementizer systems (marking realis/declarative vs irrealis/subjunctive), shown by Rivero (1994) and by Ledgeway (2016: 1023-107), respectively, to be prominent Balkan syntactic features.
Once again, at least one of the features, verb-auxiliary inversion, is common to two contact settings (vertical contact and contact in the Balkan Sprachbund setting).
6. Modelling contact-induced syntactic (and morphosyntactic) change. More recently, Heine & Kuteva (2006) and Matras & Sakel (2007) have advanced models for analysing contact-induced change. As Kuteva (2017) shows, both are based on a two-way distinction between (i) linguistic transfer involving phonological material/phonetic substance (borrowing in Heine & Kuteva, matter in Matras & Sakel) and (ii) linguistic transfer involving the transfer of meanings and the structures associated with them whereby no phonological material/phonetic substance is involved (replication in Heine & Kuteva, pattern in Matras and Sakel). In the contact literature, this distinction, although widely recognised, is bedevilled by terminological confusion with differing uses and interpretations of such terms as borrowing, replication, (direct/indirect) transfer, interference, calquing, and congruence (see also point 3 above). For instance, in Harris & Campbell (1995) borrowing is used for the introduction of overt linguistic material as well as of abstract structural patterns from the source language (cf. also Thomason & Kaufman 1988), whereas for Weinreich (1953) both types of transfer are treated under the general heading interference. By contrast, in van Coetsam (1988, 2000) borrowing is associated with linguistic transfer when the innovators of the transfer (the ‘agents’ in his terms) are dominant in the recipient language rather than the source language from which they borrow; if the ‘agents’ are dominant in the source language, then the so-called imposition obtains.
The focus of our research project is represented by type (ii) phenomena, with a particular focus on structural aspects. As one of our explicit objectives is a methodological one, we argue that the general model should be supplied with particular algorithms adapted for each contact setting in turn since, as shown in 4 above, each contact setting has particular features of its own determined by the nature, length, social conditioning of the contact. Furthermore, the outputs of language contact in syntax go beyond mere replication, and may involve aspects such as the preservation of an archaic feature or the distinction between superficial and deep structural convergence (argued for by Nicolae 2019: 219‑220), which need to feature in a comprehensive model of language contact in syntax.
C2. Objectives
We set out to meet three distinct types of objective:
(a) empirical objectives:
– to establish a general empirical typology of structures which may result from language contact and particular typologies for each of the contact setting in the particular situations investigated here;
– to analyse phenomena which have not been explored to date or which are insufficiently explored: for example, the existence of enclitic articles in the Balkan languages is a feature discussed in virtually all reference works, starting with Kopitar (1929); yet there is no systematic cross-Balkan investigation of the cluster of phenomena generally assumed to be associated with the existence of enclitic articles: polydefinite constructions and definiteness agreement; multiple genitive marking strategies; availability of freestanding articles;
(b) theoretical objectives:
– to establish a typology of processes observable in diachronic language contact as viewed from the investigation of the three language contact settings examined in the project: most previous typologies are based on the examination of one single contact setting – e.g., Heine & Kuteva’s observations are formulated on the basis of linguistic areas, while Bybee’s and Sankoff’s are based on bilingual communities – and this explains the diametrically opposing views on language contact presented in section C1, point 2 above; this represents a major aspect of originality of our project;
– to analyse not only particular phenomena and features, but also clusters of phenomena, thus embedding our results in current parametric theory, which views parameters not as properties, but rather as hierarchically organized clusters of properties (see Roberts 2019: 11-102); in other words, individual features or structures are not viewed as completely independent, but, rather, as interrelated, hence one parametric choice renders another either irrelevant or entirely predictable;
(c) methodological objectives (see section C4 below for details):
– to formulate a general framework for analysing language contact in syntax, which does not privilege one contact setting or another;
– within this general framework, to establish algorithms tailored for each contact setting in turn.
As elements of originality and innovation of the project, we should highlight the fact that the project has a more empirically-oriented line of inquiry by placing the focus on in-depth analysis of a given phenomenon and of the phenomena with which it clusters; we believe that this line of inquiry promises to yield new results and generalizations. As for the connection to the previous projects developed by the project leader, this project represents a natural continuation of the project leader’s work from the perspective of his domains of specialisation (theoretical and comparative syntax) as well as his particular research expertise (Romanian syntax, comparative Romance and Balkan syntax, diachronic syntax) and topics previously addressed in his research (definiteness, verb movement, word order change, cliticization patterns), as presented in section B1 above.
C3. Impact
The project has the potential to significantly advance the knowledge of the field from several perspectives. First, from a theoretical and methodological point of view, by adopting a maximally broad approach to language contact viz. the setting in which contact takes place (yet at the very same time, a rather strict one, as all the contact settings are clearly delimited and circumscribed), the envisaged results of the project will offer a more comprehensive representation of the scope and limitations of language contact in the syntactic domain; as shown in section C1, this issue is surrounded by controversy in the literature, much of it stemming from the fact that generalizations and claims are formulated on the basis of particular contact settings. The results reported here will impact on several linguistic domains beyond contact linguistics and syntax: linguistic typology, diachronic linguistics, and comparative Romance and Slavonic linguistics. Second, we believe that the project is culturally relevant, as it documents data unexplored by previous scholarship, namely the Romanian variety employed by Lipovans. Finally, the project impacts on empirical and descriptive linguistics, as we set out to investigate previously unexplored or insufficiently explored features, phenomena and processes by bringing to the fore novel empirical data.
On the practical side, our research will be disseminated as follows:
– through participation in six international conferences such as: the annual meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea (2022, 2023); Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (2022), International Conference on Language Contact in Times of Globalization (2022, 2023); Going Romance (2022, 2023), Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (2022, 2023), etc.
– through the publication of three papers in specialised international journals with a high impact factor, preferably open access such as International Journal of Bilingualism, Journal of Language Contact, Probus, Diachronica, Folia Linguistica Historica, Glossa, Revue roumaine de linguistique and three papers in Romanian journals;
– through the publication of one monograph with a prestigious international publishing house such as: Oxford University Press, Brill, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Language Science Press (open‑access publishing house); as publication of monographs is generally time-consuming, we set our goal that by the end of the project the book proposal be accepted for publication;
– through the organization of two thematic workshops in Bucharest, one with the participation of the consultant of the project, Professor Adam Ledgeway (2022), and one with the participation of a reputed scholar in Balkan or areal linguistics (Victor Friedman, María Luisa Rivero, Brian Joseph) (2023);
– through editing one thematic journal issue on the basis of these workshops.
C4. Methodology
This section is structured as follows: we first present the choice of the investigation methodologies and tools in the current state-of-the art in the field, then we move to the workplan and timeline (presented as a table) and the potential risks in relation to the project objectives.
(a) Investigation methodologies and tools. In the project, we will use the standard tools (available language corpora, linguistic atlases, fieldwork) and standard methods applied in the study of linguistic variation and change. However, given the specific nature of our project, what is incumbent upon us is the formulation of a framework to assess the impact and effects of language contact on syntactic structure, which singles out the phenomena and processes resulting from language contact. At present, there exist: (i) models for analysing contact-induced change (Heine & Kuteva 2006; Matras & Sakel 2007), (ii) criteria that should be applied in cases of appeal to language contact as an explanation for a change (e.g., Bybee 2015: 249-250), and (iii) algorithms for determining whether a given syntactic feature is due to foreign influence (e.g., Dragomirescu 2015 proposes an algorithm for determining whether particular old Romanian syntactic features are due to Old Church Slavonic influence). Given the distinct nature of the contact settings – the three contact settings have distinct properties from many points of view such as type of bilingualism involved; duration of contact; geographical spread – and the different outcomes of contact reported in the literature, it is not feasible to formulate a strict methodology to be strictly applied in all contexts. Thus, one of our proposed objectives is to formulate a methodological framework broad enough to allow for the identification of contact phenomena irrespective of the contact setting, which is complemented, in turn, by specific algorithms tailored for each contact setting.
References
A. References cited in the proposal
Allen, C. L. (1980). Topics in diachronic English syntax, PhD thesis (University of Massachusetts 1977). New York: Garland.
Backus, A., S. Doğruöz, B. Heine (2011). ‘Salient stages in contact-induced grammatical change: Evidence from synchronic vs. diachronic contact situations’. Language Sciences 33: 738−752.
Bisang, W. (1996). ‘Sprachliche Areale in Asien am Beispiel der Satzverknüpfung’, in: N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, T. Stolz (eds), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 24–50.
Boioc Apintei, A. (2020). ‘The Slavic-Balkan contact. The case of Lipovan Romanian’. Analele Universității din București(forthcoming).
Bybee, J. (2015). Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cihac, A. de (1870). Dictionnaire d’etymologie daco-romane. Vol. I. Elements latins, compares avec les autres langues romanes. Frankfurt a.M.: Ludolphe St. Goar, Berlin: A. Asher, Buucharest: Socec.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dahl, Ö. (2001). ‘Principles of areal typology’, in: M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, W. Raible (eds), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1456–1470.
Densusianu, O. (1961). Istoria limbii române, I. Originile, II. Secolul al XVI-lea.Bucharest: Editura Științifică.
Dimmendaal, G. (1998). ‘Language Contraction versus other Types of Contact-induced Change’, in M. Brenzinger (ed.), Endangered Languages in Africa. Cologne: Köppe.
Dragomirescu, A. (2015). ‘Există trăsături slavone în sintaxa limbii române? Două studii de caz / Are there Slavonic Features in the Syntax of Romanian? Two case studies’. Diacronia 1, 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.17684/i1A3ro / http://dx.doi.org/10.17684/i1A3en.
Friedman, V. (2011). ‘The Balkan languages and Balkan linguistics’. Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 275–291.
Guardiano, C., D. Michelioudakis, A. Ceolin, M.-A. Irimia, G. Longobardi, N. Radkevic, G. Silvestri, I. Sitaridou (2016). ‘South by south east. A syntactic approach to Greek and Romance microvariation’. L’Italia dialettale, LXXVII: 96–166.
Gumperz, J. J., R. Wilson (1971). ‘Convergence and creolization: A case from the IndoAryan/Dravidian border’, in: D. Hymes (ed.), Pidgnization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: CUP, 151–168.
Harris, A. C., L. Campbell (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2005).Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2006). The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hickey, R. (2010). ‘Language contact: reconsideration and reassessment’, in R. Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 1−28.
Jakobson, R. (1938). ‘Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques des langues’, in: Acts of the 4th International Congress of linguists, Copenhagen.
Joseph, B. D. (2001). ‘Is Balkan comparative syntax possible?’, in: M. L. Rivero, A. Ralli (eds), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17-43.
Kopitar, J. 1829. ‘Albanische, walachische und bulgarische sprache’. Jahrbücher der Literatur 46: 59–106
Kuteva, T. (2017). ‘Contact and borrowing’, in A. Ledgeway, I. Roberts (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163−186, doi:10.1017/9781107279070.009.
Ledgeway, A. (2011). ‘Clausal complementation’, in A. Ledgeway, M. Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1013–1028.
Lindstedt, J. (2000). ‘Linguistic Balkanization: contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement’. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 28: 231-246
Matras, Y., J. Sakel (2007). ‘Investigating the mechanisms of pattern-replication in language convergence’. Studies in Language, 31: 829–865.
McMahon, A., Y. Matras, N. Vincent. (2006). ‘Introduction’, in: Y. Matras, A. McMahon, N. Vincent (eds), Linguistic Areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective. Houndmills, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, xv – xx.
Meillet, A. (1914). ‘Le problème de la parenté des langues’. Scientia, 15/35.
Miklosich, F. von (1861). ‘Die slavischen Elemente im Rumänischen’. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 12, 1–70.
Mišeska Tomić, O. (2006). Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features.Dordrecht: Springer.
Montrul, S. (2004). ‘Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence’. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 7, 2: 125–142.
Nicolae, A. (2015). ‘The parameter of definiteness in Romanian: diachronic and synchronic evidence’. in: V. Hill (ed.), Formal Approaches to DPs in Old Romanian. Boston/Leiden: Brill, 17-61.
Oksaar, E. (1972). ‘Bilingualism’, in CTL, IX: 475−511.
Petrovici, E. (1943). ‘Daco-slava’. Dacoromania, X, II: 233-277.
Prigarin, A. A. (2007). ‘Staroobrjadcheskoje naselenie Pridunavia v konce XVIII nachale XIX vv’. Lipovane, 3-4, Odessa, 3-15.
Roberts, I. (2019). Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosetti, Al. (1968). Istoria limbii române de la origini până în secolul al XVII-lea. Bucharest: Editura pentru Literatură.
Sanchez, L. (2004). ‘Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 147–162.
Sandfeld, Kr. (1930). Linguistique balkanique. Problèmes et resultants. Paris: Champion.
Sankoff, G. (2002). ‘Linguistic outcomes of language contact’, in: J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 638-668.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York, Harcourt: Brace and company.
Sherzer, J. (1973). ‘Areal linguistics in North America’, in: T. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 10. The Hague: Mouton, 749–795.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). ‘Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles’, Oxford studies in language contact. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2008). ‘The limits of convergence in language contact’. Journal of Language Contact 2, 1: 213-224.
Solta, G. R. (1980). Einfürung in die Balkanliguistik mid besonderer Be-rücksichtigung des Substrats und des Balkanlateinischen, Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Tagliavini, C. ([1972]1977). Originile limbilor neolatine – introducere în fiologia romanică. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică.
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Thomason, S., T. Kaufman (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley-Los Angeles.
Timotin, E. (2016). ‘Presenting the corpus: typologizing, dating, and locating the texts’, in: G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–7.
Trask, L. (1996). Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. New York, London: New York University Press.
Trudgill, P. (2001). ‘Contact and simplification: Historical baggage and directionality in linguistic change’. Linguistic Typology 5, 2/3: 371–374.
Trudgill, P. (2004). New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.
Van Coetsem, F. (2000). A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, C. Winter.
Weigand, G. (1928). ‘Texte zur vergleichenden Syuntax der Balkansprachen’. Balkan Archiv, IV: 53-70.
Weinreich, U. ([1953] 1968). Languages in contact. Findings and problems, ed. VI, Haga‑Paris.
Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
B. General references for the research project
Adams, J. (1976). ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’. Indogermanische Forschungen,81: 70–99.
Adams, J. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, J. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, M. (1987). Old French, Null Subjects, and Verb Second Phenomena. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Adler, M. K. (1977). Collective and individual bilingualism. A sociolinguistic study, Hamburg: Buske.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2002). Language Contact in Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alboiu, G., V. Hill (2012). ‘Early Modern Romanian and Wackernagel’s Law’. SKY Journal of Linguistics,25, 7–28.
Alboiu, G., V. Hill (2017). ‘Grammaticalization of auxiliaries and parametric changes’. The Linguistic Review, 34, 3: 419–40.
Alboiu, G., V. Hill, I. Sitaridou (2014). ‘Discourse-driven V-to-C in Early Modern Romanian’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. DOI 10.1007/s11049-014-9270-8.
Alkire, T., C. Rosen (2010). Romance Languages: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, Greenough (2001 [1903, 1888]). New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges, Founded on Comparative Grammar, ed. by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D’Ooge, updated for Focus by Anne Mahoney.
Appel, R., P. Muysken (1987). Language contact and bilingualism, Londra, Baltimore, Melbourne-Auckland.
Ascoli, G. I. (1881). ‘Lettere glottologiche’. Revista di Filologia e d’Istruzione classica, X: 1−71.
Avram, M. ([1975] 2007). ‘Particularități sintactice neromânești în diferite momente ale evoluției limbii române literare’, in: Studii de sintaxă a limbii române.Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române, 93−103.
Baker, M. C. (1985). ‘The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation’. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 3: 373–415.
Baldi, P., P. Cuzzolin (eds) (2009). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1. Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baldi, P., P. Cuzzolin (eds) (2010a). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 2. Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baldi, P., P. Cuzzolin (eds) (2010b). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 3. Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baños Baños, J. (ed.) (2009). Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus.
Bastardas Parera, J. (1953). Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval. Barcelona: Escuela de filología.
Bauer, B. (1995). The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauer, B. (2001). ‘Variability in word order: adjectives and comparatives in Latin, Romance, and Germanic’. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 20: 19–50.
Bauer, B. (2009). ‘Word order’, in: P. Baldi, P. Cuzzolin (eds), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, I. Syntax of the Sentence.Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 241‒316.
Benincà, P. (1983). ‘Un’ipotesi sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali’’. Quaderni Patavini Di Linguistica, 4: 3–19.
Benincà, P. (1995). ‘Complement clitics in Medieval Romance: the Tobler-Mussafia law’, in: A. Battye, I. Roberts (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–44.
Benincà, P. (2006). ‘A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance’, in: R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herberger, P. H. Portner (eds), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics. Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 53–86.
Bennett, C. (1910). Syntax of Early Latin. I. The Verb.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Biberauer, T., A. Holmberg, I. Roberts (2014). ‘A syntactic universal and its consequences’. Linguistic Inquiry,45, 2: 169–225.
Bichakjian, B., (1987). ‘The evolution of word order: A paedomorphic explanation’, in: A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba, G. Bernini (eds), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 87–107.
Blas Arroyo, J. L. (1991). ‘Problemas téoricos en el estudio de la interferencia lingüística”. Revue romane de linguistique, XXI, 265−289.
Bolonyai, A. (1998) ‘In-between languages: language shift/maintenance in childhood bilingualism’, International Journal of Bilingualism,2, 21–43.
Bourgain, P. (2005). Le latin medieval. Turnhout: Brepols.
Brăescu, R., A. Dragomirescu (2014). ‘Sintaxa adjectivelor relaţionale în limba română veche’.Limba română,LXIII, 1: 27–47.
Brăescu, R., A. Dragomirescu, A. Nicolae (2015). ‘(Non‑)configurationality and the internal syntax of adjectives in Romanian’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XVII, 2: 55–74.
Buridant, C. (2000). Grammaire nouvelle de l’ancien français. Paris: SEDES.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins, W. Pagliuka (1994). The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
Cassano, P. V. (1976) ‘Teorías de lenguas en contacto: el concepto del estado latente según Jakobson y Weinreich versus el del cambio exógeno (averiguado en el náhuatl, quechua, maya en contacto con el español de America)’. Actes du XIIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes tenu à l’Université Laval (Québec, Canada) du 29 août au 5 septembre 1971, I-II, Québec, 543−551.
Cinque, G. (2005). ‘Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions’. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 3: 315–32.
Cinque, G. (2010). The Syntax of Adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (2013). ‘Word-order typology: a change of perspective’, in: T. Biberauer, M. Sheehan (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–73.
Clackson, J. (2007). Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clackson, J., G. Horrocks (2007). The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Clark, R., I. Roberts (1993). ‘A computational approach to language learnability and language change’. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 2: 299–345.
Cognola, F. (2013). ‘The mixed OV/VO syntax of Mòcheno main clauses: on the interaction between high and low left periphery’, in: T. Biberauer, M. Sheehan (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 106–135.
Comrie, B., T. Kuteva (2005). ‘The typology of relative clause formation in African Languages’, în E. Voeltz (ed.), African Studies,Amsterdam, Benjamins.
Comrie, B., G. G. Corbett (eds), (2002 [1993]), The Slavonic Languages.London, New York: Routledge.
Corbeanu, R. C. (2017). Topica subiectului în limba română veche. PhD dissertation, “Iorgu Iordan – Alexandru Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics, The Romanian Academy.
Cornilescu, A., A. Nicolae (2009). ‘Evoluţia articolului hotărât şi genitivul în româna veche’, in: R. Zafiu, G. Stoica, M. N. Constantinescu (eds), Limba română. Teme actuale. Bucharest: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 647–669.
Cornilescu, A., A. Nicolae (2011a). ‘On the history of Romanian genitives: the prenominal genitive’. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, XIII, 2: 37–55.
Cornilescu, A., A. Nicolae (2011b). ‘On the syntax of Romanian definite phrases: changes in the patterns of definiteness checking’, in: P. Sleeman, H. Perridon (eds), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 193–221.
Crisma, P. (1991). Functional Categories inside the NP: A Study on the Distribution of Nominal Modifiers. Tesi di laurea, Universita di Venezia.
Crisma, P., C. Gianollo (2006). ‘Where did Romance N-raising come from? A parallel study of parameter resetting in Latin and English’, in: J. Doetjes, P. González (eds), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 71–93.
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach, Longman, Harlow.
Croft, W. (2010). Relativity, Linguistic Variation and Language Universals, CogniTextes 4.303. <http://cognitextes.revues.org/303>.
Croitor, B. (2014). ‘Asymmetric coordination in old Romanian’. Linguistica Atlantica, 33, 2, 4–24.
Cruschina, S. (2011). ‘Focalization and word order in old Italo-Romance’. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 10, 95–132.
Dardano, M., G. Frenguelli (eds) (2004). SintAnt. La sintassi dell’italiano antico. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Rome: Aracne.
De Bray, R. G. A. (1969). Guide to the Slavonic Languages. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc.
Demonte, V. (1999). ‘El adjetivo: clases y usos. La posición del adjetivo en el sintagma nominal’, in: I. Bosque, V. Demonte (eds), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Volume 1, Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras. Madrid: Espasa, 129–215.
Devine, A.M., L. D. Stephens (2000). Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Devine, A.M., L. D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickey, Eleanor, A. Chahoud (eds) (2010). Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diez, F. (1876). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Vierte Auflage. Bonn: Eduard Weber.
Dimitrescu, F. (1975). Introducere în morfosintaxa istorică a limbii române. Bucharest: Centrul de multiplicare al Universității din București.
Dimmendaal, G. (1998). ‘Language Contraction versus other Types of Contact-induced Change’, in M. Brenzinger (ed.), Endangered Languages in Africa, Cologne, Köppe.
Djamo-Diaconiță, L, (1975). ‘Aspects de la place de l’adjectif dans la langue des chartes slavo-roumaines de la Valachie (XIVe – XVIe s)’. Revue roumaine de linguistique,XX, 4: 337−40.
Doğruöz, A. S. (2007). Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change in Dutch Turkish: A Corpus-based Analysis, teză de doctorat, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Doğruöz, A. S., A. Backus (2007). ‘Postverbal elements in immigrant Turkish: evidence of change?’. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11: 185–220.
Doğruöz, A. S., A. Backus (2009). ‘Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: an assessment of on-going contact-induced change’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12: 41–63.
Dragomirescu, A. (2013). ‘O schimbare parametrică de la româna veche la româna modernă în sintaxa formelor verbale compuse cu auxiliar’. Limba română, LXII, 2: 225−239.
Dragomirescu, A. (2018). ‘Language contact and the syntax of old Romanian: on the head parameter’. Revue roumaine de linguistique,LXIII, 4: 379–395.
Dragomirescu, A., A. Nicolae (2018). ‘Syntactic archaisms preserved in a contemporary romance variety: interpolation and scrambling in old Romanian and Istro-Romanian’, in: G. Pană Dindelegan, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae (eds), Comparative and Diachronic Perspectives on Romance Syntax. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 85–115.
Dryer, M. S. (2007). ‘Word order’, in: T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd end., vol. I. Clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61‒131.
Durante, M. (1981). Dal latino all’italiano moderno. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Elcock, W. (1975). The Romance Languages. Revised with a New Introduction by J. N. Green. London: Faber.
Elšík, V., Y. Matras (2006). Markedness and Language Change: The Romani Sample. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ernout, A., F. Thomas, ([1953] 1993). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
Field, F. W. (2002). Linguistic borrowing in bilingual context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fischer, I. (1985). Latina dunăreană. Bucharest: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică.
Fishman, J. A. et. al., 1966, Language loyalty in the United States, Haga.
Fontana, J. M. (1993). Phrase Structure and the Syntax of Clitics in the History of Spanish. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Fox, A. (1995). Linguistic Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frâncu, C. (2009). Gramatica limbii române vechi. Iași: Casa Editorială Demiurg.
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedrich, P. (1975). Proto-Indo-European Syntax: The Order of Meaningful Elements. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph 1. Butte: Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology.
Gafton, A. (2001). Evoluția limbii române prin traduceri biblice din secolul al XVI–lea. Studiu lingvistic asupra Codicelui Bratul în comparație cu Codicele Voronețean, Praxiul Coresian și Apostolul Iorga. Iași: Editura Universității “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”.
García Sanchidrián, M. L. (1994). ‘El orden de palabras en las cartas de San Braulio’, in: Actas del VIII congreso español de estudios clásicos. Madrid: Sociedad española de estudios clásicos, 549–553.
García-Hernández, B. (ed.) (1998). Estudios de lingüística latina. Actas del IX coloquio internacional de lingüística latina, Universidad autonoma de Madrid, 14–18 de abril de 1997. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Gardani F. (2018). ‘On morphological borrowing’, în Lang Linguist Compass, e12302. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12302.
Gardani, F. (2008). Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Gardani, F. (2012). ‘Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination’, in L. Johanson, M. I. Robbeets (ed.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 71–97.
Gardner Chloros, P. (2010). ‘Contact and Code-Switching’, în R. Hickey (ed.) The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 188−207.
Gell-Mann, M., M. Ruhlen (2011). ‘The origin and evolution of word order’. PNAS 108, 42, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1113716108
Gheție, I., F. Zgraon (1981). ‘Despre așa-numitele formații premorfologice din limba română veche’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice, XXXII, 2, 179–181.
Giacalone Ramat, A., P. Ramat (eds) (1998). The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge.
Gianollo, C. (2005). Constituent Structure and Parametric Resetting in the Latin DP: A Diachronic Study. PhD dissertation, University of Pisa.
Gianollo, C. (2007). ‘The internal syntax of the nominal phrase in Latin. A diachronic study’, in: G. Purnelle J. Denooz (eds), Ordre et cohérence en Latin / Word Order and Text Cohesion in Latin. Liège: Librairie Droz, 65–80.
Gildersleeve, B., G. Lodge, ([1895] 1997). Latin Grammar. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Giurgea, I. (2013). Originea articolului posesiv-genitival al şi evoluția sistemului demonstrativelor în română. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române.
Giusti, G. (1998). ‘The rise of a functional category. From Latin ille to the Romance article and personal pronoun’. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 2: 53–71.
Giusti, G. (2001). ‘The birth of a functional category: from Latin ille to the Romance article and personal pronoun’, in: G. Cinque, G. Salvi (eds), Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Amsterdam/London/New York/Oxford/Paris/Shannon/Tokyo: Elsevier, 157–71.
Göksel, A., C. Kerslake (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar, London & New York, Routledge.
Golumbia, D. (2004). ‘The interpretation of nonconfigurationality’. Language and Communication 24: 1–22.
Grandgent, C. (1907). An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: Heath.
Greco, P. (2007). Accusativus cum infinitivo e subordinate completive con quod, quia e quoniam in alcune cronache latine dell’Italia centro-meridionale (secoli X – XII). PhD dissertation, University of Naples.
Green, D. (1998). ‘Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system’. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1: 67−81.
Greenberg, J. H., 1966, ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in: J. H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Massachusetts/London, England, The MIT Press, 73‒113.
Haider, H. (2015). ‘Head directionality’, in: A. Fabregas,J. Mateu,M. Putnam (eds), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. Bloomsbury Academic, 73‒97.
Hale, K. (1982). ‘Preliminary remarks on configurationality’, North East Linguistic Society 12: 86–96.
Hale, W., B. Carl ([1903] 1994). A Latin Grammar. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Harizanov, B. (2016). ‘Head movement to specifier positions in Bulgarian participle fronting’, paper presented at The 90th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA 90), Washington, DC, January 2016.
Harris, M. (ed.) (1977). Romance Syntax: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. University of Salford.
Harris, M., N. Vincent (eds) (1988). The Romance Languages. London: Croom Helm.
Haugen, E. (1950), ‘The analysis of linguistic borrowing’. Language, 26, 2: 210−231.
Haugen, E., 1953, The Norwegian language in America, a study of bilingual behavior, 2v., Philadelphia.
Hawkins, J. (1983). Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.
Heath, J. (1978). Linguistic diffusion in Arnhem Land (Australian Aboriginal Studies Research and Regional Studies, 13.), Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Heath, J. (1984). ‘Language contact and language change’. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13: 367−384.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2003). ‘On contact-induced grammaticalization’. Studies in Language, 27, 3, 529−72.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2005). Language contact and grammatical change.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2006). The changing languages of Europe.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B., T. Kuteva (2008). ‘Constraints on contact-induced linguistic change”. Journal of Language Contact – THEMA,2, 57−90 (www.jlc-journal.org).
Herman, J. (2000). Vulgar Latin. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Herman, J. (ed.) (1994). Linguistic Studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Hill, V., G. Alboiu (2016). Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinojo, G. (2002). ‘El orden de palabras en el latín medieval’, in: Maurilio Pérez González (ed.), Actas del III congreso hispánico de latín medieval. Leon: Universidad de León, 627–635.
Hjemslev, L. (1966). Le langage, Paris.
Hope, T. E. (1962). ‘Loanwords as cultural and lexical symbols’. Archivum Linguisticum, XIV, 111−121.
Hope, T. E. (1964). ‘The process of neologism reconsidered with reference to lexical borrowing in Romance’, Transactions of the Philological Society, 46−84.
Hristea, T. (1968). Probleme de etimologie. București: Editura Științifică, 145−189.
Hualde, J. I. (2003). ‘Derivation’, in J. I. Hualde, J. Ortiz de Urbina (ed.), A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 328–351.
Huntley, D. (1993). ‘Old Church Slavonic’, in: B. Comrie, G. Corbett (eds), The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge, 125–187.
Iliescu, M. (2003). ‘Phénomènes de convergence et de divergence dans la Romania : morphosyntaxe et syntax’, in: G. Ernst, M.-D. Gleβgen, C. Schmitt, W. Schweickard (eds), Romanische Sprachgeschichte / Histoire linguistique de la Romania. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Geschichte der romanischen Sprachen / Manuel international d’histoire linguistique de la Romania. Teilband/Tome 3. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3266–3281.
Iovino, R. (2016). ‘Osservazioni diacroniche sulle espressioni nominali discontinue dal latino alle lingue romanze’, in: M. Fruyt, G. V. M. Haverling, R. Sornicola (eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 2 : Linguistique latine/linguistique romane. Nancy: ATILF/SLR, 101–114.
Jaeggli, O. (1981). Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Janson, T. (1979). Mechanisms of Language Change in Latin. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Johanson, L. (2008) ‘Remodeling grammar: copying, conventionalization, grammaticalization’, in P. Siemund, N. Kintana (ed.), Language Contact and Contact Languages. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 61−79.
Jordan, M. (2009). Loss of Infinitival Complementation in Romanian Diachronic Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Jungemann, F. (1955). La teoría del sustrato y los dialectos hispanorromances y gascones, Madrid.
Kanasakar, T. R., Y. P. Yadava, K. P. Chalise, B. Prasain, D. N. Dhakal, K. Paudel, 2011, A grammar of Baram, Kirtipur, Nepal: Linguistic and ethnographic documentation of the Baram language.
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MA, MIT Press.
Kayne, R. S. (2013). ‘Comparative syntax’. Lingua 130: 132−151.
Keesing, R. M. (1991). ‘Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin’, in E. C. Traugott, B. Heine (eds), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315–342.
King, J. T. (2009). A grammar of Dhimal. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region: vol. 8, Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Klausenburger, J. (2000). Grammaticalization. Studies in Latin and Romance Morphosyntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kuteva, T. (1999). ‘Languages and societies: The punctuated equilibrium model of language development’. Language and Communication,19: 213−228.
Kuteva, T. (2001).‘Diachronic stability of grammatical categories and areal grammaticalization’. General Linguistics,38: 109-132.
Kuteva, T. (2008). ‘On the frills of grammaticalization’, in M. J. López-Couso, E. Seoane (eds), T. Fanego, Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty‑first century (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189−219.
Lakoff, R. (1968). Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lambert, E. (1955). ‘Measurement of the linguistic dominance of bilinguals’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50: 197−200.
Langacker, R. W. (1977). ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in: C. N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, London: University of Texas Press, 57–139.
Langslow, D. (2000). Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledgeway A., I. Roberts (eds) (2017). The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ledgeway, A. (2004). Grammatica diacronica del napoletano. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Ledgeway, A. (2008). ‘Satisfying V2 in early Romance: Merge vs. Move’. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 2: 437–470.
Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledgeway, A. (2014). ‘Parametrul poziției centrului și efectele sale pragmatice în trecerea de la latină la limbile romanice’, in: R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, A. Nicolae (eds), Limba română: diacronie și sincronie în studiul limbii române, I. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București, 11‒26.
Ledgeway, A. (2017). ‘Late Latin verb second: the sentential word order of the Itinerarium Egeriae’, in: J. Mateu, R. Oniga (eds), Generative Approaches to Latin Syntax. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics,16: 163−216.
Ledgeway, Adam (in press). ‘From Latin to Romance syntax: the great leap’, in: P. Crisma, G. Longobardi (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Diachronic and Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledgeway, A., A. Lombardi (2005). ‘Verb movement, adverbs, and clitic positions in Romance’. Probus 17, 1: 77–101.
Ledgeway, A., M. Maiden (eds) (2016), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legate, J. A. (2001). ‘The configurational structure of a nonconfigurational language’, in: P. Pica (ed.), Linguistic Variation Book. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 63–99.
Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on Grammaticalization.München: Lincom.
Lehmann, C. (2002). Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, 2nd edition, rev. Erfurt: University of Erfurt.
Lehmann, W. (1974). Proto-Indo-European Syntax.Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lehmann, W. (1992). Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Lewis, E. G.(1972) Multilingualism in the Soviet Union. Aspects of Language Policy and its Implementation, The Hague/Paris, Mouton, 9−13.
Li, C. N. (ed.) (1975). Word order and Word Order Change. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, D. (ed.) (2002). Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindsay, W. (1907). Syntax of Plautus. Oxford: James Parker & Co.
Lisón, N. (2001). El orden de las palabras en los grupos nominales en latín. Zaragoza: Monografías de la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Lobiuc, I. (1977). ‘Contactele lingvistice, I. Considerații introductive’. Analele Universității Al. I. Cuza, Iași, XXIII: 10−22.
Löfstedt, E. (1959). Late Latin. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.
Lunt, H. (2001). Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mackey, W. F. (1976). Bilinguisme et contact des langues, Paris.
Mackey, W. F., J. Ornstein (1979). Socioloinguistic studies in language contact. Methods and cases, Haga.
Maiden, M., J. C. Smith, A. Ledgeway (eds) (2011). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 1: Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maiden, M., J. C. Smith, A. Ledgeway (eds) (2013). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2: Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malmberg, B. (1950). Étude sur la phonétuque de l’ espagnol parlé en Argentine, Lund, Copenhaga, Paris.
Malmberg, B. (1959). ‘L’extension du castellan et le problème des substrats’, in Actes du Colloque International de Civilisations, Littératures et Langues Romanes, Bucharest, 249−260.
Maracz, L., P. Muysken, (eds) (1989). Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris.
Marouzeau, J. (1922). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. I. Les groupes nominaux. Paris: Champion.
Marouzeau, J. (1938). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. II. Le verbe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Marouzeau, J. (1949). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine. III. Les articulations de l’énoncé. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Marouzeau, J. (1953). L’ordre des mots en latin. Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Martinet, A. (2013). Prefață,in: U. Weinreich, Limbi în contact. Constatări și probleme, traducere și cuvânt introductiv de Marinela Burada. Brașov: Editura Universității Transilvania din Brașov, 13−16.
Mateu, J., R. Oniga (eds) (2017). Generative Approaches to Latin Syntax. Special issue of Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16: 163−216.
Matras, Y. (1996). ‘Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romanes’. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 49, 1: 60–78.
Matras, Y. (1998). ‘Convergent development, grammaticalization, and the problem of mutual isomorphism’, in W. Boeder, C. Schroeder, C.H.Wagner, W. Wildgen (eds), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, vol. II. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 89–103.
Matras, Y. (2007). ‘The borrowability of structural categories’, in Y. Matras, J. Sakel (eds), Grammatical borrowing in cross‐linguistic perspective, Berlin & New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 31–73, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199192.31.
Matras, Y. (2010). ‘Contact, Convergence and Typology’, in R. Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, Malden, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 66−85.
McMahon, A. (2010). ‘Computational Models and Language Contact’, in W. Blackwell, The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 128−147.
Meillet, A. (1921). Linguistique historique et linguistique Générale. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, A. (19082). Introduction à l’étude comparée des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Hachette.
Mensching, G. (2012). ‘Parameters in Old Romance word order: a comparative minimalist analysis’, in: C. Galves, S. Cyrino, R. Lopes, F. Sandalo, J. Avelar (eds), Parameter Theory and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–42.
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1897). ‘Zur Stellung der tonlosen Objektspronomina’. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie XXI: 313–334.
Migdalski, K. (2015). ‘On the loss of tense and verb-adjacent clitics in Slavic’, in: G. Walkden, T. Biberauer (eds), Syntax over Time: Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179–196.
Migdalsky, K. (2016). ‘Head directionality in Old Slavic’, paper presented at the 12th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Berlin, December 2016.
Mihăescu, H. (1960). Limba latină în provinciile dunărene ale Imperiului Roman. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Milroy, L., J. Milroy (1985). ‘Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation’. Journal of Linguistics, 21: 339−384.
Mišeska Tomić, O. (2006). Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features.Dordrecht: Springer.
Moldovanu, D. (1969). ‘Influenţe ale manierismului greco-latin în sintaxa lui Dimitrie Cantemir: hiperbatul’, in: I. Gheţie (ed.), Studii de limbă literară şi filologie. Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 25–50.
Moldovanu, D. (1977-8). ‘Formaţiile premorfologice din limba română veche’. Anuar de Lingvistică și Istorie Literară XXVI: 45–69.
Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). ‘Language contact’, in: J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, E. A. Moravcsik (eds), Universals of human language.Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 93−123.
Mussafia, A. (1886). ‘Una particolarità sintattica della lingua italiana dei primeri secoli’, in: G. I. Ascoli et al. (eds), Miscellanea di filologia e linguistica in memoria di Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angelo Canello. Florence: Le Monni, 255–261.
Myers‐Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism, Oxford, Blackwell.
Nicolae, A. (2015). Ordinea constituenţilor în limba română: o perspectivă diacronică. Structura propoziţiei și deplasarea verbului.Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.
Nicolae, A. (2016). ‘Word order and configurationality’, in: G. Pană Dindelegan (ed.), The Syntax of Old Romanian.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 562‒575.
Nicolae, A. (2019). Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian. A Comparative Romance Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicolae, A., D. Niculescu (2015). ‘On clitics and clitic clusters in old Romanian: verb movement and the Tobler-Mussafia Law’. Revue roumaine de linguistique, LX, 2–3, 223–241.
Niculescu, A. (1965). Individualitatea limbii române între limbile romanice,I. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică.
Olteanu, P. (1969). ‘Adjectivul în Cazania I a Diaconului Coresi și în versiunea slavă de Neagovo’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice,XX, 2: 183‒95.
Olteanu, P. (1974). Sintaxa şi stilul paleoslavei şi slavonei. Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică.
Palii, A., 1991, Calchierea ca aspect al interferenţei limbilor (contacte moldo-ruse). Chişinău: Editura Ştiinţa, 1−95.
Palmer, L. ([1954] 1990). The Latin Language. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.) (2016). The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pană Dindelegan, G., R. Zafiu, A. Dragomirescu, I. Nicula, A. Nicolae, L. Esher (eds) (2015). Diachronic Variation in Romanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pancheva, R. (2005). ‘The rise and fall of second-position clitics’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 103‒167.
Pancheva, R. (2008). ‘Head-directionality of TP in Old Church Slavonic’, in: A. Antonenko, J. Bailyn, C. Bethin (eds), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting, 2007. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 313‒332.
Panhuis, D. (1984). ‘Is Latin an SOV language?’. Indogermanische Forschungen,89: 140–59.
Paul, H. (1920). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle Niemeyer.
Pavel, E. (2014). ‘The Slavonic model versus the Latin model in the Romanian biblical texts’. Dacoromania, XIX, 1: 82–98.
Penny, R. (20022). A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pereltsvaig, A., M. W. Lewis (2015). The Indo-European Controversy. Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pfaff, C. (1979). ‘Constrains on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and borrowing in Spanish/English’. Language, 55: 291−318.
Poletto, C. (2014). Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Politzer, R. T. (1950). ‘Sustrato’. Word, VI, 250−254.
Polo, C. (2004). Word Order in Latin, Italian and Slovene between Morphology and Syntax. Padua: Unipress.
Poole, G. (2007). ‘Interpolation and the left periphery in Old Spanish’, in: M. Hussein, M. Kolokonte, C. Wright (eds). Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics,13: 188–216.
Popușoi, C. (2013). Limba română actuală din Basarabia. Particularități morfosintactice și lexico-semantice. Bucharest: Editura Muzeului Național al Literaturii Române, Colecția AULA MAGNA, 7−130.
Primus, B. (2001). ‘Word order typology’. in: M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, W. Raible (eds), Language typology and Language Universals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 855‒873.
Rădulescu, M. (1963). ‘Topica atributului adjectival în Evanghelia cu învățătură a Diaconului Coresi’. Studii și cercetări lingvistice,XIV, 2: 233−58.
Rainer, F., 1993, Spanische Wortbildungslehre, Tübingen, Niemeyer.
Rayfield, J. R., 1970, The Languages of a Bilingual Community, The Hague, Mouton.
Reinhardt, T., M. Lapidge, J. Adams (eds) (2005). The Language of Latin Prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renzi, L., G. Salvi (2010). Grammatica dell’italiano antico (II volumi). Bologna: il Mulino.
Ribeiro, I. (1995). ‘Evidence for a verb‑second phase in Old Portuguese’, in: A. Battye, I. Roberts (eds), Clause Structure and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–139.
Rinke, E., M. Elsig (2010). ‘Quantitative evidence and diachronic syntax’. Lingua, 120, 11: 2557–168.
Rizzi, E., P. Molinelli (1994). ‘Latin and Greek compared: word order in a bilingual papyrian text’, in: J. Herman (ed.), Linguistic Studies on Latin. Selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23–27 March 1991). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 113–127.
Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roberts, I. (2007). Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I., A. Roussou (2003). Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rohlfs, G. (1930). ‘Vorlateinische Einflüsse in den Mundarten des heutigen Italiens?’, GRM, XVIII: 37-56.
Rohlfs, G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi.
Rosenblat, Á. (1967). ‘Contactos interlingüísticos en el mundo hispánico: el español y las lenguas indígenas de América’, in Actas del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas, Nijmegen, 109−154.
Ross, M. D. (1996). ‘Contact-induced change and the comparative method: cases from Papua New Guinea’, in M. Durie, M. Ross (eds), The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 180–217.
Ross, M. D. (2001). ‘Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-West Melanesia’. in A. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 134–166.
Sakel, J. (2007). ‘Types of loan: Matter and pattern’, in Y. Matras, J. Sakel (eds), Grammatical borrowing in cross‐linguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 15–29.
Sala, M. (1997). Limbi în contact. Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedică.
Sala, M. (2006). De la latină la română, 2nd edition. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.
Salvi, G. (2004). La formazione della struttura di frase romanza. Ordine delle parole e clitici dal latino alle lingue romanze antiche. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Salvi, G. (2005). ‘Some firm points on Latin word order: the left periphery’, in: K. É. Kiss (ed.), Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 429–456.
Salvi, G. (2012). ‘On the nature of the V2 system of Old Romance’, in: L. Brugè, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, C. Poletto (eds), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Volume 7, Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–111.
Salvi, G/ (2016). ‘Word order’, in: A. Ledgeway, M. Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 997–1012.
Sankoff, G. (2002). ‘Linguistic outcomes of language contact’, in: J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden: Blackwell, 638–669.
Schenker, A. M. (2002). ‘Proto-Slavonic’, in: Bernard Comrie, Greville G. Corbett (eds), The Slavonic Languages. London, New York: Routledge, 60−121.
Schifano, N. (2018). Verb Movement in Romance. A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schlemmer, G. (1983). Die Rolle des germanischen Superstrats in der Geschichte der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft, Hamburg.
Schmalstieg, W. R. (1983 [1976]). An Introduction to Old Church Slavic, second edition, revised and expanded. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.
Schuchardt, H. (1884). Dem Herrn Franz von Miklosich zum 20. Nov. 1883. Slawo Deutsches und Slawo‐Italienisches, Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.
Seidel, E. (1958). Elemente sintactice slave în limba română.Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Seifart, F. (2012). ‘The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact: Evidence from morphological borrowing in Resígaro (Arawakan)’. Diachronica, 29, 4: 471–504.
Seifart, F. (2015). ‘Direct and indirect affix borrowing’. Language, 91, 3: 511–532.
Seifart, F. (2017). ‘Patterns of affix borrowing in a sample of 100 languages’. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 7, 3: 389–431, https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.16002.sei.
Sheehan, M. (2017). ‘The Final-over-Final condition and the Head-Final filter’, in: M. Sheehan, T. Biberauer, I. Roberts, A. Holmberg (eds), The Final-over-Final Condition. A Syntactic Universal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 121–149.
Sihler, A. (1995). A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silaghi, C. (2014). ‘Manifestations of the linguistic interference in a divergent Ukrainian language from Romania’, in: I. Boldea (ed.), The Proceedings of the International Conference Globalization, Intercultural Dialogue and National Identity, vol. 1, Târgu-Mureș, Arhipelag XXI Press, 816−825.
Sitaridou, I. (2011). ‘Word order and information structure in Old Spanish’. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 10: 159–84.
Skok, P. (1935). ‘Restes de la langue turque dans les Balkans’. Revue Internationale des Études Balkaniques, 1, 2: 247–260.
Smith, N. V. (1981). ‘Consistency, markedness and language change: On the notion of consistent language’. Journal of Linguistics,17: 39−54.
Sornicola, R., E. Poppe, A. Shisha-Halevy (eds) (2000) Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns Over Time. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Springfield Tomelleri, V., I. Veniaminovna Verner (eds) (2018). Latinitas in the Slavonic Wold. Berlin/Bern: Peter Lang.
Stan, C. (2013). O sintaxă diacronică a limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura Universității din București.
Stieber, Z. (1965). ‘Existe-t-il des lois concernant les contacts entre les langues?’. BPTJ, XXIII: 107−123.
Stump, G. (2017). ‘Inflectional morphology’, in: M. Aronoff (ed.), The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, New York, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.246
Sussex, R., P. Cubberley (2006). The Slavic Languages. Cambridge, New York etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Thomason, S. G. (2001a). ‘Contact languages’, in: L. Mesthrie (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier, 463−470.
Thomason, S. G. (2001b), Language contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Thomason, S. (2010). ‘Contact Explanations in Linguistics’, in: R. Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 32−47.
Timotin Emanuela (2010a). Descântecele manuscrise româneşti (secolele al XVII-lea – al XIX-lea). ediţie critică, studii lingvistice şi filologice. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
Timotin Emanuela (2010b). ‘Les noms de la fièvre en roumain ancien (XVIe – XVIIIe siècles)’, in: M. Iliescu, H. Siller-Runggaldier, P. Danler (Hrsg.), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes (3-8 septembre 2007, Innsbruck), t. VI. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Verlag, 583–92.
Tobler, A. (1875). ‘Besprechung von J. Le Coultre, De l’ordre des mots dans Chrétien de Troye’. Vermische Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik 5: 395–414.
Togeby, K. (1975). ‘Désorganisation et réorganisation dans l’histoire des langues romanes’, Miscelánea homenaje a André Martinet « Estructuralisma e historia», I, La Laguna, 277−287.
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). ‘Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem’, Acta Linguistica, 1, 1: 81–89, https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1939.10410851.
Trudgill, P. (2004). ‘The impact of language contact and social structure on linguistic structure: Focus on the dialects of Modern Greek’, in: B. Kortmann (ed.), Dialect grammar from across-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 435−452.
Väänänen, V. (19663). Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Väänänen, V. (1982). Introduzione al latino volgare. Bologna: Pàtron.
van Gelderen, E. (ed.) (2016). Cyclical Change Continued. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Van Hout, R., P. Muysken (1994). ‘Modelling lexical borrowability”. Language Variation and Change, 6: 39−62.
Vance, B. (1997). Syntactic Change in Medieval French. Verb second and Null Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vanelli, L. (1986). ‘Strutture tematiche in italiano antico’, in: H. Stammerjohann (ed.), Tema-Rema in Italian. Tübingen: Narr, 248–273.
Vanelli, L. (1998). ‘Ordine delle parole e articolazione pragmatica nell’italiano antico: La “prominenza” pragmatica della prima posizione nella frase’. Medioevo romanzo, 23: 229–246.
Vascenco, V., 2005, Old bilievers. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
Vasiliu, E., L. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (1986). Limba română în secolele al XII-lea – al XV-lea. Fonetică – Fonologie – Gramatică. Bucharest: Tipografia Universităţii din Bucureşti.
von Reinhardstoettner, C. (1878). Grammatik der portugiesischen Sprache auf Grundlage des Lateinischen und der romanischen Sprachvergleichung bearbeitet. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Watkins, C. (1998). ‘Proto-Indo-European: comparison and reconstruction’, in: A. Giacalone Ramat, P. Ramat (eds), The Indo-European Languages.London: New York, Routledge, 25‒73.
Wedel, A. (1999). Turkish emphatic reduplication, Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, Linguistics Research Center.
Weil, H. ([1844] 1887). The Order of Words in the Ancient Languages Compared with that of the Modern Languages. Boston: Ginn & Co.
Weinreich, U. ([1953] 2013), Limbi în contact. Constatări și probleme, traducere și cuvânt introductiv de Marinela Burada. Brașov: Editura Universității Transilvania din Brașov.
Weinreich, U., W. Labov, M. Herzog (1968): Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change. Directions for Historical Linguistics, Austin, 95−195.
Whitney, W. D. (1881). ‘On mixture in language’. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 12: 5–26, https://doi.org/10.2307/2935666.
Willis, D. (2000). ‘Verb movement in Slavonic conditionals’, in: S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas, A. Warner (eds), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 322‒348.
Wolfe, S. (2015). ‘Verb-initial orders in Old Romance: a comparative account’. Revue roumaine de linguistique, LX, 2–3: 147–72.
Wolfe, S. (2019). Verb Second in Medieval Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.