In:Historical Linguistics 2023: Selected papers from the 26th International Conference on Historical Linguistics,Heidelberg, 4-8 September 2023
Edited by Jadranka Gvozdanović
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 371] 2026
► pp. 82–101
Ambiguity avoidance vs. expectation sensitivity as functional factors in grammatical change
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
There is a long tradition of invoking ambiguity avoidance
as a functional factor in explaining the rise of differential argument
marking. But more recently, some authors have contrasted anti-ambiguity as a
motivating factor with “predictability-based marking” or “expectation
sensitivity”. Here I revisit the debate, starting from the observation that
ambiguity or indeterminacy is rampant in language use and language
structures. It could not be otherwise because there is no way to specify
every aspect of meaning that might conceivably be interesting. On the
empirical side, I extend the discussion of functional motivations and
pathways in differential argument marking to other kinds of differential
coding, especially “differential discourse function” marking. I argue that
in all these systematic differential-coding situations, expectation
sensitivity provides a good explanation of the typological patterns and
their diachronic motivations, while ambiguity avoidance is often
irrelevant.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Ambiguity and expectations
- 2.Does ambiguity avoidance explain differential argument marking?
- 3.Ambiguity is overrated
- 4.Language change often creates ambiguity
- 5.Expectation sensitivity explains differential object flagging better
- 6.Expectation sensitivity also explains differential R flagging (DRF)
- 7.Expectation sensitivity also explains differential place marking
- 8.Expectation sensitivity also explains other cases
of function-content associations - 9.Closing remarks: Diachrony and functional motivations
Notes Abbreviations References
References (54)
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential
object marking: Iconicity vs.
economy. Natural Language &
Linguistic
Theory 21(3). 435–483.
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2009. Differential
argument marking in two-term case systems and its implications for
the general theory of case
marking. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential
Subject Marking (Studies in Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory
72), 151–171. Dordrecht: Springer. ( )
Bowe, Heather J. 1990. Categories,
constituents, and constituent order in Pitjantjatjara: An aboriginal
language of
Australia. London: Routledge.
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The
diachronic dimension in
explanation. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining
language
universals, 350–379. Oxford: Blackwell.
Caldwell, Robert. 1856. A
comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of
languages. London: Harrison.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2010. Ditransitive
constructions in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of
Telkepe. In Andrej L. Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comri, (eds.), Studies
in ditransitive constructions: A comparative
handbook, 221–242. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Subjects
and direct objects in Uralic languages: A functional explanation of
case marking systems. Études
Finno-Ougriennes 12. 5–17. ([URL])
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2019. Taking
diachronic evidence seriously: Result-oriented vs. source-oriented
explanations of typological
universals. In Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation
in
typology, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press. ([URL])
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic
categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of
information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
De Smet, Hendrik & Marie-Anne Markey. 2021. The
spark or the fuel? On the role of ambiguity in language
change. Journal of Historical
Syntax 5(32–39). 1–24. ()
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing
motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity
in
syntax, 343–365. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. Familiarity,
information flow, and linguistic
form. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency
and the emergence of linguistic
Structure, 431–448. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gast, Volker. 2007. I
gave it him: On the motivation of the Alternative Double Object
Construction in varieties of British
English. Functions of
Language 14. 31–56.
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis. 2018. The
semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for
linguistic research. Language and
Linguistics
Compass 12(2). e12270. ( )
Gibson, Edward, et al. 2019. How
efficiency shapes human
language. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 23(5). 389–407. ( )
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1969. Some
methods of dynamic comparison in
linguistics. In Jan Puhvel (ed.), Substance
and structure of
language, 147–203. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Optimality
and diachronic
adaptation. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 18(2). 180–205. ( )
. 2003. The
geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic
comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The
New Psychology of Language, volume
2, 211–243. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. (10.5281/zenodo.831410)
. 2004. Explaining
the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based
approach. Constructions 2. () ([URL])
. 2019a. Can
cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on
change? In Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds.), Competing
explanations in linguistic
typology, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press. ([URL])
. 2019b. Differential
place marking and differential object
marking. STUF — Language Typology and
Universals 72(3). 313–334.
. 2021a. Explaining
grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and
predictability. Journal of
Linguistics 57(3). 605–633. ( )
. 2021b. Role-reference
associations and the explanation of argument coding
splits. Linguistics 59(1). 123–174. ( )
. 2023a. Coexpression
and synexpression patterns across languages: Comparative concepts
and possible explanations. Frontiers
in Psychology 14. ( )
. 2023b. Word
class universals and language-particular
analysis. In Eva van Lier (ed.), The
Oxford handbook of word
classes, 15–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ([URL])
. 2026. The
non-unity of differential object marking: Flagging versus
indexing. Open Journal of Romance
Linguistics 12(1), 1–32. ( )
Heine, Bernd. 2009. Grammaticalization
of
cases. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of
case, 458–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2005. Differential
case-marking in
Hindi. In Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition
and variation in natural languages: The case for
case, 321–345. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy
and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information
density. Cognitive
Psychology 61(1). 23–62.
Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller. 2010. Non-zero/non-zero
alternations in differential object
marking. In Patrick Brandt & Marco García García (eds.), Transitivity:
Form, meaning, acquisition, and
processing, 119–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ( )
Melis, Chantal & Marcela Flores. 2009. On
the interplay between forces of erosion and forces of repair in
language change A case study. Folia
Linguistica
Historica 43. 271–310. ( )
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. On
the limits of subject-object ambiguity
tolerance. Research on Language &
Social
Interaction 11(1–2). 255–259. ( )
Piantadosi, Steven T.; Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2012. The
communicative function of ambiguity in
language. Cognition 122(3). 280–291.
Plank, Frans. 1980. Encoding
grammatical relations: Acceptable and unacceptable
non-distinctness. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical
morphology, 289–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ( )
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive
complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in
English. Cognitive
Linguistics 7(2). 149–182.
. 2021. Ambiguity
avoidance by means of function words in English? Providing
additional corpus-based
counterevidence. Zeitschrift für
Anglistik und
Amerikanistik 69(3). 207–236. ( )
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies
in Semitic grammaticalization (Harvard
Semitic Museum Publications Number
57). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Senft, Gunter. 1986. Kilivila,
the language of the Trobriand
Islanders (Mouton Grammar Library,
3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Seržant, Ilja A. 2019. Weak
universal forces: The discriminatory function of case in
differential object marking
systems. In Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne Maria Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant, Ilja A. (eds.), Explanation
in typology: Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the
nature of the
evidence, 149–178. Berlin: Language Science Press. ([URL])
2025. Diachronic
and typological evidence from argument marking confirms generic
audience-design effects and strong effects of ambiguity avoidance in
the domain. (Ms., University of Potsdam)
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A
typological perspective on Differential Object
Marking. Linguistics 52(2). 281–313.
Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze. 2017. When
zero is just enough … In support of a Special Toponymic Grammar in
Maltese. Folia
Linguistica 51(2). 453–482. ( )
Tal, Shira, Kenny Smith, Jennifer Culbertson, Eitan Grossman & Inbal Arnon. 2022. The
Impact of Information structure on the emergence of differential
object marking: An experimental
study. Cognitive
Science 46(3). e13119. ( )
Terzi, Arhonto. 2010. On
null spatial Ps and their
arguments. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics 9. 167–187. ( )
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2010. Animacy
and information structure in the system of ergative marking in
Umpithamu. Lingua 120(7). 1637–1651. ( )
Wasow, Thomas. 2015. Ambiguity
avoidance is
overrrated. In Susanne Winkler (ed.), Ambiguity:
Language and
communication, 21–51. Berlin: De Gruyter. ( )
