f The diachronic emergence of alignment cross‑linguistically

References

1. Anderson, S. R.
   2005 Morphological Universals and Diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004ed. byG. Booij & J. van Marle, 1–17. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑2900‑4_1
   https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2900-4_1 [Google Scholar]
2. Anderson, S. R.
   2016 Synchronic vs. Diachronic Explanations and the Nature of the Language Faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics21:11–31. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011415‑040735
   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040735 [Google Scholar]
3. Bisang, W.
   1992 Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Ver- gleichende Grammatik im Rahmen der Verbserialisierung, der Grammatikalisierung und der Attraktorpositionen. Tübingen: Narr.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bubenik, V.
   1998 A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabrahmśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.165
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.165 [Google Scholar]
5. Bybee, J.
   1988 The Diachronic Dimension in Explanation. Explaining Language Universalsed. byJ. A. Hawkins, 350–379. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bybee, J.
   2006 Language Change and Universals. Linguistic Universalsed. byR. Mairal & J. Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618215.009
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618215.009 [Google Scholar]
7. Chappell, H.
   2013 Pan-Sinitic Object Markers: Morphology and Syntax. Breaking Down the Barriers: Interdisciplinary Studies in Chinese Linguistics and Beyonded. byG. Cao, H. Chappell, R. Djamouri & T. Wiebusch, 785–816. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Chappell, H., A. Peyraube & Y. Wu
   2011 A Comitative Source for Object Markers in Sinitic Languages: kai55 in Waxiang and kang7 in Southern Min. Journal of East Asian Linguistics201:291–338. 10.1007/s10831‑011‑9078‑z
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-011-9078-z [Google Scholar]
9. Coghill, E.
   2016 The Rise and 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]
10. Comrie, B.
    1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Creissels, D.
    2008 Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica421:1–38. 10.1515/FLIN.2008.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.1 [Google Scholar]
12. Cristofaro, S.
    2012 Cognitive Explanations, Distributional Evidence, and Diachrony. Studies in Language361:645–670. 10.1075/sl.36.3.07cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.07cri [Google Scholar]
13. Cristofaro, S.
    2014 Competing Motivations and Diachrony: What Evidence for What Motivations?Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usageed. byB. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, and E. Moravcsik, 282–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
14. Dahl, E.
    2021a Aspects of Alignment Change. Diachronica38:3.303–313. 10.1075/dia.21033.dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21033.dah [Google Scholar]
15. Dahl, E.
    2021b Pathways to Split Ergativity. Diachronica38:3.413–456. 10.1075/dia.19046.dah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19046.dah [Google Scholar]
16. Dahl, E.
    (ed.) 2022a Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198857907.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198857907.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
17. Dahl, E.
    2022b Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family and Beyond. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Familyed. byE. Dahl, 1–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198857907.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198857907.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. DeLancey, S.
    1981 An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns. Language571:626–657. 10.2307/414343
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414343 [Google Scholar]
19. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language551:59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
20. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
21. Dryer, M.
    2006 Functionalism and the Metalanguage – Theory Confusion. Phonology, Morphology, and the Empirical Imperative: Papers in Honour of Bruce Derwinged. byG. W. G. Libben, T. Priestly, R. Smyth & S. Wang, 27–59. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Du Bois, John A.
    1985 Competing Motivations. Iconicity in Syntaxed. byJohn Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
23. Du Bois, J. A.
    1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language631:805–855. 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
24. Gildea, S.
    1998 On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195109528.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195109528.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
25. Givón, T.
    1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Givón, T.
    2001 Syntax: An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syn1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn1 [Google Scholar]
27. Haig, G.
    2008 Alignment Change in Iranian Languages; A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198614
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198614 [Google Scholar]
28. Haig, G.
    2017 Deconstructing Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativityed. byJ. Coon, D. Massam & L. D. Travis. 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.20
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.20 [Google Scholar]
29. Harris, A. C.
    1985 Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373143
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373143 [Google Scholar]
30. Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell
    1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
31. Kibrik, A. E.
    1997 Beyond Subject and Object: Towards a Comprehensive Relational Typology. Linguistic Typology11:279–346. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.3.279 [Google Scholar]
32. König, C.
    2008 Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199232826.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199232826.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
33. Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson
    1973 Serial Verb Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: Coordination or Subordination?You Take the High Node and I will Take the Low Node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival, Chicago Linguistics Societyed. byC. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser, 96–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson
    1974 An Explanation of Word Order Change SVO → SOVFoundations of Language121:201–214.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lord, C.
    1993 Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.26 [Google Scholar]
36. Mithun, M.
    1991 Active / Agentive Case Marking and Its Motivation. Language671:510–546. 10.1353/lan.1991.0015
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0015 [Google Scholar]
37. Mithun, M. & W. Chafe
    1999 What are S, A, and O?Studies in Language23:3.569–596. 10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit [Google Scholar]
38. Moravcsik, E. A.
    1978 On the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative Patterns. Lingua451:233–279. 10.1016/0024‑3841(78)90026‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(78)90026-8 [Google Scholar]
39. Stroński, K. K.
    2021 Typology and Diachrony of Converbs in Indo-Aryan. Diachronica38:3.437–501. 10.1075/dia.19067.str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19067.str [Google Scholar]
40. Verbeke, S.
    2013 Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292671
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292671 [Google Scholar]
41. Zúñiga, F.
    2018 The Diachrony of Morphosyntactic Alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass12:9.e12300. 10.1111/lnc3.12300
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12300 [Google Scholar]