1887
Volume 38, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.21033.dah
2021-09-24
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aldridge, Edith
    2011 Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. InDianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.). Grammatical change. Origins, nature, outcomes, 332–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2017 Intransitivity and the development of ergative alignment. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel, Balthasar
    2008 On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. InGreville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–210. 10.1075/tsl.81.09ont
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.81.09ont [Google Scholar]
  4. Brugmann, Karl & Berthold Delbrück
    1893Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte desAltindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 3, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 1Strassburg: Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1897Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 4, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 2. Strassburg: Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1900Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 5, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 3Strassburg: Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
    2017 Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan diachrony. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coghill, Eleanor
    2016The rise & fall of ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. InWinfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis
    (eds.) 2017The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Creissels, Denis
    2018 The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 59–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.02cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.02cre [Google Scholar]
  12. Dahl, Eystein
    2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. InEystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.). Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112.03dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.03dah [Google Scholar]
  13. Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński
    (eds.) 2016Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1972The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084987 [Google Scholar]
  15. 1979 Ergativity. Language55. 59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  17. 1997The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612060
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612060 [Google Scholar]
  18. Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
    (eds.) 2008The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2007 Clause types. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1. Clause structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Estival, Dominique & John Myhill
    1988 Formal and functional aspects of development from passive to ergative systems. InMasayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 441–491. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.16.15est
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.16.15est [Google Scholar]
  21. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič & Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič
    1984Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy : rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokulʹtury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical typological analysis of a protolanguage and a proto-culture]. Tbilisi: Izd. Tbilisskogo Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Garrett, Andrew
    1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language66(2). 261–296. 10.2307/414887
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414887 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gildea, Spike
    1997 Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.35.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.35.04gil [Google Scholar]
  24. Haig, Geoffrey
    2017 Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris, Alice C.
    1981Georgian syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1985Diachronic syntax. The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373143
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373143 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1990 Alignment typology and diachronic change. InWinfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1987: Systematic balance in language: Papers from the Linguistic Typology Symposium, Berkeley, 1–3 Dec 1987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.67.05har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.67.05har [Google Scholar]
  28. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hasselbach, Rebecca
    2013Case in Semitic: Roles, relations, and reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671809.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671809.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hirt, Hermann Alfred
    1934Indogermanische Grammatik. T. 6, Syntax, 1: Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus un der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Holisky, Dee A.
    1987 The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua71. 103–132. 10.1016/0024‑3841(87)90069‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Johanson, Lars
    1999 The structure of Turkic. InLars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Klimov, Georgij A.
    1974 On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics131. 11–25. 10.1515/ling.1974.12.131.11
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.131.11 [Google Scholar]
  34. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
    2003The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486876
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486876 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lehmann, Thomas
    1998 Old Tamil. InSanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. McGregor, William B.
    2006 Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua116. 393–423. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1). 480–508. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00118.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00118.x [Google Scholar]
  38. 2017 Grammaticalization of ergative case marking. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Merlan, Francesca
    1985 Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. InJohanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Approaches to theory from the field, 324–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moravcik, Edith A.
    1978 On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua45(3–4). 233–279. 10.1016/0024‑3841(78)90026‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(78)90026-8 [Google Scholar]
  41. Payne, John R.
    1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua51. 147–186. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plank, Frans
    (ed.) 1979Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1985 The extended accusative/restricted nominative in perspective. InFrans Plank (ed.), Relational typology, 269–310. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110848731.269
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848731.269 [Google Scholar]
  44. 1995 Ergativity. InJoachim Jacobs (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2, 1184–1199. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110142631.2.20.1184
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110142631.2.20.1184 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pott, A. F.
    1873 Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven nominativs. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen7. 71–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ray, Sidney H.
    1907Reports of the Cambridge anthropological expedition to Torres Straits, Volume II: Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schuchardt, Hugo
    1896 Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasichen Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien), Philosophisch-historische Classe133(1). 1–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Trask, Larry R.
    1979 On the origin of ergativity. InFrans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations385–404. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Uhlenbeck, C. Cornelis
    1916 Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen von Noord-Amerika. Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afd. Letteren. 5e reeks. 187–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Whitman, John
    1997Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. InHo-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol.6, 161–178. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Whitman, John and Yuko Yanagida
    2012 The formal syntax of alignment change. InCharlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 177–195. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659203.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659203.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yanagida, Yuko
    2018 Differential subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. InI. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman
    2009 Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics18. 101–144. 10.1007/s10831‑009‑9043‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-009-9043-2 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zuñiga, Fernando
    2018 The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass12. 1–21. 10.1111/lnc3.12300
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12300 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.21033.dah
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error