Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” - Volume 50, Issue 2, 2026

In Chiquitano (Macro-Jê), multiple constructions are used to translate other languages’ transitive clauses. The language has traditionally been analyzed as a nominative–accusative one, with almost all transitive verbs taking more morphological marking than the intransitive verbs. In this contribution, I put forward an alternative proposal, whereby Chiquitano is considered to be an ergative–absolutive language. The constructions traditionally analyzed as basic transitive clauses are shown to be representative of voice alternations — antipassive or inverse —. I further show that the language has a class of pseudo-transitive verbs, which can likewise enter a kind of inverse construction (“pseudo-transitive inverse”). I conclude the paper by comparing my proposal to previous analyses; my account of the facts fares better with regard to the syntax of subordination in desiderative clauses, typological plausibility of lexicalization of certain predicates as transitive, and economy of exponence.

The grammaticalization cline predicts that clitics should be longer than affixes. This work tests this idea and also investigates whether clitics tend to be monosyllabic and whether proclitics and enclitics differ in length. Clitics are defined as items that are part of larger phonological words and attach to hosts from different word classes. Our database comprises 378 clitics and 1,394 affixes from several dozen languages. We find that clitics are monosyllabic significantly more often than all other lengths combined and that enclitics are significantly longer than proclitics. As such, clitics show the same tendencies as affixes. The direct comparison between clitics and affixes reveals that clitics are longer, but this difference is not significant. We argue that any distinction between the two types should rely on distributional and/or functional differences, but these criteria yield gradient results and/or are poorly explored, which further complicates morphological and diachronic analyses.

This paper examines a poorly studied theme in Australianist linguistics, the expression of knowing and ignorance. The investigation is typological, based on a sample of 149 Indigenous Australian languages, largely a convenience sample, though most major genetic groupings and geographical regions are covered. It examines basic lexemes and grammatical constructions employed in expressing knowledge and ignorance. It is shown that many languages lexicalise both knowledge and ignorance, usually as nominals, less commonly as types of verb. The basic grammatical properties of these lexical items are overviewed, including their semantics (they typically encompass both practical and declarative knowledge) and use in complement constructions. There are two emically distinct complement types in some languages, one expressing practical knowledge, the other declarative knowledge. The practical construction has a complement clause embedded in the matrix clause, whereas in the declarative construction the complement clause is framed as an encoding of a putative fact.

In some work based on the framework of Diachronic Construction Grammar, a branch of Construction Grammar (e.g. Croft 2001; Goldberg 2006), it has been argued that phenomena traditionally classified as instances of grammaticalization should not be considered as belonging to a distinct field of its own within historical linguistics. Rather, it is proposed that such phenomena are more appropriately taken care of within Diachronic Construction Grammar. The present paper takes issue with this stance, arguing that grammatical change as it is the subject of grammaticalization theory has a unique place within the field of diachronic linguistics. The paper focuses on a study by Gildea & Barðdal (2023), which represents the most pronounced position on this issue within Diachronic Construction Grammar.