1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Linguistics
  4. Volume 14, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-2116
  • E-ISSN: 2210-2124
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Case marking alignment has been assumed to reflect principles of optimization: dedicated case marking is limited to arguments more in need of disambiguation, and semantically or pragmatically similar arguments are encoded by the same case forms. This view is based on the synchronic properties of the relevant alignment patterns and the cross-linguistic rarity of other logically possible ones, not diachronic phenomena involved in their emergence or cross-linguistic distribution. This paper explores several developmental processes that recurrently give rise to accusative, ergative, and active case marking alignment cross-linguistically, including reanalysis of argument structure, the development of case forms through grammaticalization or phonological reduction, and the extension of an existing case form to novel contexts. These processes appear to be driven by inherent or contextual properties of particular source constructions, independent of principles of optimization in the use of case marking. The synchronic properties of the resulting alignment patterns cannot be taken as evidence for such principles either, because they are due to inheritance (a case form inherits the distribution of particular source elements or developmental processes, which is unrelated to the assumed optimization principles) or residue (a case form becomes restricted to particular arguments as a new form develops for the other arguments, also independently of these principles). These facts call for a source-oriented approach to case marking alignment and recurrent cross-linguistic patterns in general, one where the focus shifts from the synchronic properties of individual patterns to unraveling the effects of several different diachronic phenomena that give rise to individual patterns and shape their cross-linguistic distribution over time.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
2024-03-12
2024-12-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aissen, J.
    2003 Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory211:435–483. 10.1023/A:1024109008573
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Baker, M.
    2015 Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107295186
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295186 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blake, B.
    1987 Australian Aborigenal Grammar. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blake, B. J.
    2001 Case. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164894
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164894 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blevins, J.
    2004 Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486357
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486357 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bubenik, V.
    1998 A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabrahms’a). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.165
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.165 [Google Scholar]
  9. Butt, M.
    2006 Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164696
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164696 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 2008 Formal Universals as Emergent Phenomena: The Origins of Structure Preservation. Linguistic Universals and Language Changeed. byJ. Good, 108–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 Language Universals and Usage-Based Theory. Language Universalsed. byM. Christiansen, C. Collins & S. Edelman, 17–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, J. & C. Beckner
    2015 Emergence at the Cross-Linguistic Level: Attractor Dynamics in Language Change. The Handbook of Language Emergenceed. byB. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady, 183–200. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118346136.ch8
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346136.ch8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca
    1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chappell, H.
    2013 Pan-Sinitic Object Markers: Morphology and Syntax. Breaking Down the Barriers: Interdisciplinary Studies in Chinese Linguistics and Beyonded. byC. Guangshun, H. Chappell, R. Djamouri & T. Wiebusch, 785–816. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2023 From oblique to core case in the Southern Min languages: The role of topic in the emergence of optional object marking in Sinitic. Journal of Historical Linguistics14:1.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Chappell, H. & J.-C. Verstraete
    2019 Optional and Alternating Case Marking: Typology and Diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass131. 10.1111/lnc3.12311
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12311 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Comrie, B.
    1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 2013 Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases. The World Atlas of Language Structures Onlineed. byM. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. https://apicsonline.info/parameters/59
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Comrie, B. & T. Kuteva
    2005 The Evolution of Grammatical Structures and “Functional Need” Explanations. Language Origins: Perspectives on Evolutioned. byM. Tallerman, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199279036.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199279036.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Cristofaro, S.
    2013 The Referential Hierarchy: Reviewing the Evidence in Diachronic Perspective. Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in the Memory of Anna Siewierskaed. byD. Bakker & M. Haspelmath, 69–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110331127.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.69 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2017 Implicational Universals and Dependencies Between Grammatical Phenomena. Dependencies in Language: On the Causal Ontology of Linguistic Systemsed. byN. Enfield, 9–24. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2019 Taking Diachronic Evidence Seriously: Result-Oriented vs. Source-Oriented Explanations of Typological Universals. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidenceed. byK. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Croft, W.
    2000 Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2003 Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Culbertson, J., J. Franck, G. Braquet, M. B. Navarro & I. Arnon
    2020 A Learning Bias for Word Order Harmony: Evidence from Speakers of NonHarmonic Languages. Cognition2041:104392. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104392
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104392 [Google Scholar]
  30. Culbertson, J. & E. L. Newport
    2017 Innovation of Word Order Harmony Across Development. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science11:91–100. 10.1162/OPMI_a_00010
     https://doi.org/10.1162/OPMI_a_00010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Culbertson, J., P. Smolensky & G. Legendre
    2012 Learning Biases Predict a Word Order Universal. Cognition1221:306–329. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.017 [Google Scholar]
  32. Cyffer, N.
    1998 A Sketch of Kanuri. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Dahl, E.
    2016 The Origin and Development of the Old Indo-Aryan Predicated -tá Construction. Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspectiveed. byE. Dahl & K. Stroński, 61–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112.03dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.03dah [Google Scholar]
  34. 2021 Pathways to Split-Ergativity: The Rise of Ergative Alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan. Diachronica381:413–456. 10.1075/dia.19046.dah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19046.dah [Google Scholar]
  35. de Hoop, H. & A. L. Malchukov
    2008 Case-Marking Strategies. Linguistic Inquiry391:565–587. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1977 The Syntactic Development of Australian Languages. Mechanisms of Syntactic Changeed. byC. Li, 365–415. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑011
     https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-011 [Google Scholar]
  38. 1979 Ergativity. Language551:59–138. 10.2307/412519
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  40. Du Bois, J. A.
    1985 Competing Motivations. Iconicity in Syntaxed. ByJ. Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  41. 1987 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language631:805–855. 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  42. Eckardt, R.
    2006 Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Farrell, P.
    2005 Grammatical Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199264018.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199264018.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fedzechkina, M., T. F. Jaeger & E. L. Newport
    2012 Language Learners Restructure Their Input to Facilitate Efficient Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1091:17897–17902. 10.1073/pnas.1215776109
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215776109 [Google Scholar]
  45. Filimonova, E.
    2005 The Noun Phrase Hierarchy and Relational Marking: Problems and Counterevidence. Linguistic Typology91:77–113. 10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77 [Google Scholar]
  46. Fortescue, M.
    1995 The Historical Source and Typological Position of Ergativity in Eskimo languages. Etudes/Inuit/Studies191:61–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gaby, A.
    2008 Pragmatically Case-Marked: Non-Syntactic Functions of the Thaayorre Ergative Suffix. Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languagesed. byI. Mushin & B. Baker, 111–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.104.08gab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.104.08gab [Google Scholar]
  48. Garrett, A.
    1990 The Origin of NP Split Ergativity. Language661:261–296. 10.2307/414887
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414887 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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]
  50. Givón, T.
    2001 Syntax: An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Goedegebuure, P.
    2013 Split-Ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie1021:270–303. 10.1515/za‑2012‑0015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/za-2012-0015 [Google Scholar]
  52. Grossman, E. & S. Polis
    2018 Swimming Against the Typological Tide or Paddling Along with Language Change?: Dispreferred Structures and Diachronic Biases in Affix Ordering. Journal of Historical Linguistics81:388–443. 10.1075/jhl.17027.gro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.17027.gro [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. 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]
  55. 2018 The Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor State. Linguistics561:781–818. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0011 [Google Scholar]
  56. Haig, G. & S. Schnell
    2016 The Discourse Basis of Ergativity Revisited. Language921:591–618. 10.1353/lan.2016.0049
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0049 [Google Scholar]
  57. Harris, A. C.
    1985 Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373143
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373143 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2002 Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199246335.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199246335.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2008 On the Explanation of Typologically Unusual Structures. Linguistic Universals and Language Changeed. byJ. Good, 59–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  60. 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]
  61. Haspelmath, M.
    2019 Can Cross-Linguistic Regularities Be Explained by Constraints on Change?Linguistic Universals and Language Changeed. ByK. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Haspelmath, M. & the APiCS Consortium
    2013 Alignment of Case Marking of Personal Pronouns. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Onlineed. byS. M. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath & M. Huber. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://apics-online.info/parameters/59
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemeyer
    1991 Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hercus, L. A.
    1982 The Bagandji Language. (=Pacific Linguistics, B-67). Canberra: The Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Holton, G.
    2008 The Rise and Fall of Semantic Alignment in Northern Halmahera, Indonesia. The Typology of Semantic Alignmented. byM. Donohue & S. Wichman, 252–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  67. 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]
  68. 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]
  69. Kulikov, L.
    2006 Case Systems in a Diachronic Perspective. Case, Valency and Transitivityed. byL. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart, 23–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.04kul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.04kul [Google Scholar]
  70. Kurumada, C. & S. Grimm
    2019 Predictability of Meaning in Grammatical Encoding: Optional Plural Marking. Cognition1911:103953. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.022 [Google Scholar]
  71. Kurumada, C. & T. F. Jaeger
    2015 Communicative Efficiency in Language Production: Optional Case-Marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language831:152–178. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  72. Li, C. N., J. O. Sawyer & S. A. Thompson
    1977 Subject and Word Order in Wappo. International Journal of American Linguistics431:85–100. 10.1086/465464
     https://doi.org/10.1086/465464 [Google Scholar]
  73. 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 Festivaled. byClaudia Corum, Thomas Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser, 96–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 1974 An Explanation of Word Order Change SVO→SOV. Foundations of Language121:201–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 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]
  76. Luraghi, S. & G. Inglese
    2022 The Origin of Ergative Case Markers: The Case of Hittite Revisited. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Familyed. byE. Dahl, 123–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198857907.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198857907.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  77. Malchukov, A.
    2008 Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)Establishing the Connection. The Typology of Semantic Alignmented. byM. Donohue & S. Wichmann, 76–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  78. McGregor, W. B.
    2006 Focal and Optional Ergative Marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua1161:393–423. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  79. 2008 Indexicals as Sources of Case Markers in Australian Languages. Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analysesed. ByF. Josephson & I. Söhrman, 299–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.103.15mcg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.103.15mcg [Google Scholar]
  80. McMahon, A. S.
    1994 Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166591
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166591 [Google Scholar]
  81. Melis, C.
    2021 From Topic Marking to Definite Object Marking: Focusing on the Beginnings of Spanish DOM. Differential Object Marking in Romance: The Third Waveed. byJ. Kabatek, P. Obris & A. Wal, 39–64. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110716207‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110716207-003 [Google Scholar]
  82. 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]
  83. 2005 Ergativity and Language Contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coosan. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Societyed. ByA. K. Simpson, 77–95. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2008 The Emergence of Agentive Systems in Core Argument Marking. The Typology of Semantic Alignmented by. M. Donohue & S. Wichmann, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2018 Deconstructing Teleology. Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachronyed. byS. Cristofaro & F. Zúñiga, 111–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.03mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.03mit [Google Scholar]
  86. Mithun, M. & W. Chafe
    1999 What are S, A, and O?Studies in Language231:569–596. 10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23.3.05mit [Google Scholar]
  87. 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]
  88. Newmeyer, F. J.
    1992 Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language681:756–796. 10.1353/lan.1992.0047
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0047 [Google Scholar]
  89. Ohala, J. J.
    1993 The Phonetics of Sound Change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectivesed. byC. Jones, 237–278. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 2003 Phonetics and Historical Phonology. The Handbook of Historical Linguisticsed. byR. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph, 669–686. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch22
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  91. Payne, J. R.
    1980 The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua511:147–186. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90005‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  92. Pensado, C.
    1995 La creatión del complemento directo prepositional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. El complemento directo preposicionaled by. C. Pensado, 179–233. Madrid: Visor Libros.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Rhee, S.
    2008 On the Rise and Fall of Korean Nominalizers. Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectivesed. byM. J. López-Couso & E. Seoane, 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.76.12rhe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.76.12rhe [Google Scholar]
  94. Rohlfs, G.
    1984 Von Rom zur Romania: Aspekte und Probleme romanischer Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sapir, E.
    1926 A Chinookan Phonetic Law. International Journal of American Linguistics41:105–110. 10.1086/463761
     https://doi.org/10.1086/463761 [Google Scholar]
  96. Schmidtke-Bode, K.
    2019 Attractor States and Diachronic Change in Hawkins’s Processing Typology. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidenceed. byK. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 123–148. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Schmidtke-Bode, K. & E. Grossmann
    2019 Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence: A Synthesis. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidenceed. byK. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 223–241. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Seržant, I. A.
    2019 Weak Universal Forces: The Discriminatory Function of Case in Differential Object Marking Systems. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidenceed. byK. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 149–178. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Seržant, I. A. & G. Moroz
    2022 Universal Attractors in Language Evolution Provide Evidence for the Kinds of Efficiency Pressures Involved. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications91:58. 10.1057/s41599‑022‑01072‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01072-0 [Google Scholar]
  100. Seržant, I. A. & D. Rafiyenko
    2021 Diachronic Evidence Against SourceOriented Explanation in Typology: Evolution of Prepositional Phrases in Ancient Greek. Language Dynamics and Change111:167–211. 10.1163/22105832‑bja10009
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-bja10009 [Google Scholar]
  101. Silverstein, M.
    1976 Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languagesed. byR. M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborigenal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Slobin, D. I.
    2002 Language Evolution, Acquisition and Diachrony: Probing the Parallels. The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Languageed. byT. Givón & B. F. Malle, 375–392. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.53.20slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.20slo [Google Scholar]
  103. Song, J. J.
    2001 Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Stroński, K.
    2011 Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in IndoAryan. Poznan’: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 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]
  106. Verbeke, S. & L. De Cuypere
    2009 The Rise of Ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the Role of Grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica301:1–24. 10.1515/FLIH.2009.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIH.2009.006 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
Loading
Diachronic pathways to case marking alignment and what they mean for the explanation of synchronic cross-linguistic patterns
Journal of Historical Linguistics 14, 142 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accusative; active; diachrony; ergative; origins of case marking alignment; typology

Most Cited

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