1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 49, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 49, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the effects of language contact on valency patterns by comparing Romani dialects with their contact languages. Due to their wide dispersion and extensive contact with diverse European languages, Romani dialects provide an excellent testing ground for exploring the interplay of genealogical and areal factors in valency encoding. Using data from the Romani morpho-syntax database (RMS) and BivalTyp, a typological database of bivalent verbs, we analyzed valency patterns in 43 predicates across 119 Romani varieties and 18 contact languages. Despite their relatively recent divergence (600–700 years), Romani dialects exhibit greater variation in valency patterns than some genealogical groups with a 2000-year history. These patterns align more closely with current geographic distribution and contact languages than with traditional genealogical classifications. The findings suggest that language contact is the primary driver of rapid changes in Romani valency systems, as some dialects resemble their contact languages more than other Romani varieties.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23067.koz
2025-04-22
2025-11-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.23067.koz
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apresjan, Jurij D.
    1967 Eksperimental’noe issledovanie semantiki russkogo glagola [Experimental study of the Russian verb]. Moscow: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel, Balthasar, Taras Zakharko, Lennart Bierkandt & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2014 An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language38(3). 485–511. 10.1075/sl.38.3.03bic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.03bic [Google Scholar]
  3. Blume, Kerstin
    1998 A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements. Linguistics36(2). 253–280. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.253
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.2.253 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boretzky, Norbert
    2007 The differentiation of the Romani dialects. STUF — Language Typology and Universals60(4). 314–336. 10.1524/stuf.2007.60.4.314
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2007.60.4.314 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boretzky, Norbert & Birgit Igla
    2004 Kommentierter Dialektatlas des Romani. T. 1–2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Comrie, Bernard, Iren Hartmann, Martin Haspelmath, Andrej Malchukov & Søren Wichmann
    2015 Introduction. InAndrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Vol.11, 3–26. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Crevels, Mily & Peter Bakker
    2011 External possession in Romani. InViktor Elšík & Yaron Matras (eds.), Grammatical relations in Romani: The noun phrase, 151–185. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.211.09cre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.211.09cre [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, William
    1993 Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. InJames Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1972‑6_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_5 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1998 Event structure in argument linking. InMiriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 21–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. de Leeuw, Jan & Patrick Mair
    2009 Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software31(3). 1–30. 10.18637/jss.v031.i03
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v031.i03 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dediu, Dan & Michael Cysouw
    2013 Some structural aspects of language are more stable than others: A comparison of seven methods. PLoS One8(1). e55009. 10.1371/journal.pone.0055009
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055009 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dexter, Eric, Gretchen Rollwagen-Bollens & Stephen M. Bollens
    2018 The trouble with stress: A flexible method for the evaluation of nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods161. 434–443.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dowty, David
    1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language671. 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  14. Elšík, Viktor & Michael Beníšek
    2020 Romani dialectology. InYaron Matras & Anton Tenser (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics, 389–427. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28105‑2_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28105-2_13 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1968 The case for case. InEmmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Galili, Tal
    2015 dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting, and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics31(22). 3718–3720. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv428
     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv428 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardani, Francesco
    2020 Borrowing matter and pattern in morphology. An overview. Morphology301. 263–282. 10.1007/s11525‑020‑09371‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09371-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gast, Volker & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
    2022 Patterns of persistence and diffusibility in the European lexicon. Linguistic Typology26(2). 403–438. 10.1515/lingty‑2021‑2086
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2086 [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenhill, Simon J., Chieh-Hsi Wu, Xia Hua, Micahel Dunn, Stephen C. Levinson & Russell D. Gray
    2017 Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA1141. E8822–E8829. 10.1073/pnas.1700388114
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700388114 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grossman, Eitan & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2019 Valency and transitivity in contact: An overview. Journal of Language Contact12(1). 1–26. 10.1163/19552629‑01201001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-01201001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hartman, Iren, Martin Haspelmath & Michael Cysouw
    2014 Identifying semantic role clusters and alignment types via microrole coexpression tendencies. Studies in Language38(3). 463–484. 10.1075/sl.38.3.02har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.02har [Google Scholar]
  22. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2015 Transitivity prominence. InAndrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Vol.11, 131–147. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110338812‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338812-008 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hawkins, John A.
    1985 A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2). 251–350. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kassambara, Alboukadel
    2023 ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.6.0. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr (last access4 March 2025).
  27. Kiparsky, Paul
    1998 Partitive case and aspect. InMiriam Butt & Willem Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lazard, Gilbert
    1994 L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2002 Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica36(3–4). 141–190. 10.1515/flin.2002.36.3‑4.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.141 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
    2005 Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  31. Malchukov, Andrej L.
    2005 Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. InMengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, 73–117. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044651‑6/50006‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50006-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Malchukov, Andrej
    2006 Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: constraining co-variation. InLeonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 175–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.77.21mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.21mal [Google Scholar]
  33. Malchukov, Andrej & Bernard Comrie
    (eds.) 2015 Valency classes in the world’s languages. Vol.1–21. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Malchukov, Andrej
    2015 Valency classes and alternations: parameters of variation. InAndrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Vol. 1. Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 73–130. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110338812‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338812-007 [Google Scholar]
  35. and Leipzig Valency Classes Project team 2015 Leipzig Questionnaire on valency classes. InAndrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Vol. I. Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 27–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Matras, Yaron
    2002 Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486791
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486791 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2005 The classification of Romani dialects: A geographic-historical perspective. InDieter W. Halwachs, Barbara Schrammel & Gerd Ambrosch (eds.), General and applied Romani linguistics, 7–26. Munich: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2020[2009] Language contact. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Matras, Yaron & Viktor Elšík
    2001–2016 Romani Morpho-Syntax Database. University of Manchester. Available athttps://romani.dch.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/ (last access22 August 2023)
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel
    2007 Introduction. InYaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 1–13. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199192.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199192.1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Matras, Yaron, Christopher White & Viktor Elšík
    2009 The Romani Morpho-Syntax (RMS) database. InMartin Everaert, Simon Musgrave & Alexis Dimitriadis (eds.), The use of databases in cross-linguistic studies, 329–362. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Matras, Yaron & Anton Tenser
    (eds.) 2020 The Palgrave handbook of Romani language and linguistics. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28105‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28105-2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Matras, Yaron, Márton A. Baló, Kirill Kozhanov, Daniele Viktor Leggio & Jakob Wiedner
    2022 Romani. InLenore Grenoble, Pia Lane & Unn Røyneland (eds.), Linguistic minorities in Europe online. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Michaelis, Susanne Maria
    2019 World-wide comparative evidence for calquing of valency patterns in creoles. Journal of Language Contact12 (1). 191–231. 10.1163/19552629‑20190001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-20190001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Murawaki, Yugo & Kenji Yamauchi
    2018 A statistical model for the joint inference of vertical stability and horizontal diffusibility of typological features. Journal of Language Evolution3(1). 13–25. 10.1093/jole/lzx022
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzx022 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nichols, Johanna
    1975 Verbal semantics and sentence construction. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 343–353.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. 1995 Diachronically stable structural features. InHenning Andersen (ed.), Historical Linguistics, 1993: Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 337–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.124.27nic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.124.27nic [Google Scholar]
  49. Oksanen, Jari, Gavin L. Simpson, F. Guillaume Blanchet, Roeland Kindt, Pierre Legendre, Peter R. Minchin, R. B. O’Hara, Peter Solymos, M. Henry, H. Stevens, Eduard Szoecs, Helene Wagner, Matt Barbour, Michael Bedward, Ben Bolker, Daniel Borcard, Gustavo Carvalho, Michael Chirico, Miquel De Caceres, Sebastien Durand, Heloisa Beatriz Antoniazi Evangelista, Rich FitzJohn, Michael Friendly, Brendan Furneaux, Geoffrey Hannigan, Mark O. Hill, Leo Lahti, Dan McGlinn, Marie-Helene Ouellette, Eduardo Ribeiro Cunha, Tyler Smith, Adrian Stier, Cajo J. F. Ter Braak, James Weedon, Tuomas Borman
    2025 Package ‘vegan’. R package version 2.6-10. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf (last access28 March 2025).
  50. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2021 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (last access4 March 2025).
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Say, Sergey
    2014 Bivalent verb classes in the languages of Europe: A quantitative typological study. Language Dynamics and Change4(1). 116–166. 10.1163/22105832‑00401003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00401003 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2018 Markirovanie aktantov dvuxmestnyx predikatov: predvaritel’nye itogi tipologicheskogo issledovanija [Argument marking of two-place predicates: preliminary results of a typological study]. InSergey Say (ed.), Valentnostnye klassy dvuxmestnyx predikatov v raznostrukturnyx jazykax [Valency classes of two-place predicates in structurally different languages], 557–616. St. Petersburg: ILI RAN.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (ed.) 2020– BivalTyp: Typological Database of Bivalent Verbs and Their Encoding Frames. St. Petersburg: Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS. Available athttps://www.bivaltyp.info (last access22 August 2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Sakel, Jeanette
    2007 Types of loan: Matter and pattern. InYaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 15–29. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199192.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199192.15 [Google Scholar]
  55. Seržant, Ilja A., Björn Wiemer, Eleni Bužarovska, Martina Ivanová, Maxim Makartsev, Stefan Savić, Dmitri Sitchinava, Karolína Skwarska & Mladen Uhlik
    2022 Areal and diachronic trends in argument flagging across Slavic. InEystein Dahl (ed.), Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family, 300–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198857907.003.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198857907.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  56. Skirgård, Hedvig
    2023 Grambank reveals the importance of genealogical constraints on linguistic diversity and highlights the impact of language loss. Sci. Adv.91. eadg6175. 10.1126/sciadv.adg6175
     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg6175 [Google Scholar]
  57. Trips, Carola
    2020 Copying of argument structure: A gap in borrowing scales and a new approach to model contact-induced change. InBridget Drinka (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017. Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July — 4 August 2017, 413–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.350.19tri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.19tri [Google Scholar]
  58. Tsunoda, Tasaku
    2004 Issues in case-marking. InPeri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol.21, 197–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.61.11tsu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.61.11tsu [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Belle, William & Willy van Langendonck
    (eds.) 1996 The dative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cagral.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wichmann, Søren & Eric W. Holman
    2009 Temporal stability of linguistic typological features. München: LINCOM Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Wichmann, Søren
    2015 Diachronic stability and typology. InClaire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 212–224. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
    2011 Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Ph.D. dissertation.
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23067.koz
Loading
Variation in valency patterns across Romani dialects is primarily shaped by contact languages
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 49, 858 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.23067.koz
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23067.koz
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.23067.koz
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): adpositions; areality; case marking; flagging; language contact; Romani; transitivity; valency

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