Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:2 (2019) ► pp.181–221

Loss of grammatical gender and language contact

| University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
Despite its alleged relative stability, grammatical gender has nevertheless been completely lost in a number of languages. Through the analysis of three case studies (Afrikaans, Ossetic, and Cappadocian Greek) and a brief survey of similar developments in other languages, this article investigates the link between the loss of gender and language contact, which appears to be a key factor in the decline of gender systems. Drawing on recent research within the framework of sociolinguistic typology, I focus on the specific influence that a particular type of language contact (namely, non-native or imperfect learning) usually exerts on the grammar of the languages being acquired. I also discuss the diachronic asymmetry between the loss and the development of gender in language contact settings: while gender loss seems to be contact-related in quite a number of cases, replication or borrowing of gender turns out to be a rather restricted or even rare phenomenon.
Keywords: gender loss, gender development, noun classes, complexity, simplification, contact-induced language change, diachronic typology, non-native acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.On the rise and fall of gender systems: Internal perspective
  • 3.The role of contact in gender loss
    • 3.1Afrikaans
    • 3.2Ossetic
    • 3.3Cappadocian Greek
    • 3.4Other cases
    • 3.5A brief note on contact languages
    • 3.6Sociohistorical information and the dynamics of language contact
  • 4.An asymmetry in diachrony: Does language contact cause development of gender?
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17004.iga
References (145)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2016. How gender shapes the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksenov, A. T. 1984. K probleme èsktralingvističeskoj motivacii grammatičeskoj kategorii roda. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1984(1). 14–25.Google Scholar
Appleyard, David. 2015. Ethiopian Semitic and Cushitic ancient contact features in Ge‘ez and Amharic. In Aaron Michael Butts (ed.), Semitic languages in contact, 16–32. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2014. Gender as a complex feature. Language Sciences 431. 5–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Xavier. 2015. Losing classifiers and acquiring gender. Insights from Austronesian languages. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Loss and gain in language’. University of Agder, 20–22 May 2015.
Bally, Charles. 1926. Le langage et la vie. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language. 5th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2010. Evolution of case in Ossetic. Iran and the Caucasus 141. 287–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bichakjian, Bernard H. 1999. Language evolution and the complexity criterion. Psycoloquy 101 (online: [URL], accessed 14.07.2017).
Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Taras Zakharko & Giorgio Iemmolo. 2015. Exploring diachronic universals of agreement: Alignment patterns and zero marking across person categories. In Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective, 29–52. Berlin: De Mouton Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bleek, Wilhelm H. I. 1872. The concord, the origin of pronouns, and the formation of classes or genders of nouns. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11. 64–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogoljubov, Mixail N. 1966. Jagnobskij jazyk. In Vladimir V. Vinogradov (ed.), Indoevropejskie jazyki (Jazyki narodov SSSR. Vol. 1), 342–361. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & William J. Poser. 2008. Language classification: History and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine. 2012. Spanish diminutive markers -ito/-ita in Mesoamerican languages: A challenge for acceptance of gender distinction. In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka (eds.), Morphologies in contact, 72–90. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Cheung, Johnny. 2008. The Ossetic case system revisited. In Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken & Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence: Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32), 87–105. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In Pieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 90), 25–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clamons, Robbin. 1995. How recent contact erased ancient traces in the gender systems of the Oromo dialects. In Mushira Eid & Gregory Iverson (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on historical issues in sociolinguistics/social issues in historical linguistics, 389–400. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike. 1985. Zur Entstehung von Genussystemen: Überlegungen zu einigen theoretischen Aspekten, verbinden mit einer Fallstudie des Zande. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Combrink, Johan. 1978. Afrikaans: Its origin and development. In Leonard W. Lanham & Karel P. Prinsloo (eds.), Language and communication studies in South Africa: Current studies and directions in research and inquiry, 69–95. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Inflectional morphology and language contact, with special reference to mixed languages. In Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language contact and contact languages (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 7), 15–32. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Agreement (research into syntactic change). In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 1235–1244. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2013. Number of genders. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
2014. Gender typology. In Greville G. Corbett (ed.), The expression of gender (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 6), 87–130. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Aafke Hulk. 2006. External and internal factors in bilingual and bidialectal language development: Grammatical gender of the Dutch definite determiner. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan (eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis: Dialogues, 355–378. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2003. Gender shifts in the history of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard M. 1910. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Journal of Hellenic Studies 301.109–132, 267–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A study of the dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with grammars, texts, translations, and glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2001. Variation and standardization at the Cape (1888–1922): A contribution to Afrikaans socio-historical linguistics. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 131. 301–352.Google Scholar
. 2004. Language standardization and language change: The dynamics of Cape Dutch (Impact: Studies in Language and Society 19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2011. Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dolberg, Florian. 2014. Gender variation, change, and loss in Mediaeval English: Evidence from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. PhD thesis. University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Dorian, Nancy C. 1993. Internally and externally motivated change in language contact settings: Doubts about dichotomy. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 131–155. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1). 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Order of relative clause and noun. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Duke, Janet. 2010. Gender reduction and loss in Germanic: Three case studies. In Damaris Nübling, Antje Dammel & Sebastian Kürschner (eds.), Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik, 643–673. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2011. Gender and contact: A Natural Morphology perspective. In Peter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 167–199. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2006. The Vaupés melting pot: Tucanoan influence on Hup. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology, 267–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Birth of a noun classification system: The case of Hup. In Leo Wetzels (ed.), Language endargement and endangered languages: Linguistic and anthropological studies with special emphasis on the languages and cultures of the Andean-Amazonian border area, 107–128. Leiden: Publications of the Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS).Google Scholar
Fodor, István. 1959. The origin of grammatical gender. Lingua 8(1). 1–41; 8(2). 186–214.Google Scholar
Friedman, Viktor A. 1996. Typological and areal features linking and separating the Balkans and the Caucasus. In Ian I. Press & Frank E. Knowles (eds.), Papers from the fourth world congress for Soviet and East European studies (Harrogate – July 1990): Language and linguistics ( Papers in Slavonic Linguistics Occasional Series III), 99–111. London: University of London.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2012. Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination. In Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds.), Copies versus cognates in bound morphology, 71–97. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, Francesco, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze. 2015. Borrowed morphology: An overview. In Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (eds.), Borrowed morphology (Language Contact and Bilingualism 8), 1–23. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gorrochategui, Joaquín. 2009. Vasco antiguo: algunas cuestiones de geografía e historia lingüísticas. Palaeohispanica 91. 539–555.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, 48–81. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gündoğdu, Songül. 2015. Loss of gender distinction in Muş Kurmanji. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Leiden, Leiden University. 3 September 2015.
Hamp, Eric C. 1965. The Albanian dialect of Mandres. Die Sprache 111. 137–154.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 161. 529–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Rainer Vossen. 1983. On the origin of gender in Eastern Nilotic. In Rainer Vossen & Marianne Bechhaus-Gerst (eds.), Nilotic studies: Proceedings of the International Symposium on languages and history of the Nilotic peoples, Cologne, January 4–6, 1982, part II1 (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 10), 255–268. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010. Language contact: Reconsideration and reassessment. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 1–28. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. 2014. The lenition and deletion of medial voiced obstruents in Afrikaans: Some internal, external, and extralinguistic factors. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(3). 248–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Nicholas A. 2012. The noun classifiers of Cuchumatán Mayan languages: A case of diffusion from Otomanguean. International Journal of American Linguistics 78(3). 411–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovdhaugen, Even. 1976. Some aspects of language contact in Anatolia. Working Papers in Linguistics (Oslo) 7/81. 142–160.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, Gorka Elordieta & Arantzazu Elordieta. 1994. The Basque dialect of Lekeitio (Supplements of the Anuario del Seminario de Filología vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 34). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco & Donostia/San Sebastián: Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard. 1989. Hispanisierung im Baskischen. In Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds.), Vielfalt der Kontakte. Beiträge zum 5. Essener Kolloquium über ‘Grammatikalisierung: Natürlichkeit und Systemökonomie’ vom 6–8.10.1988 an der Universität Essen, 11–35. Band I1. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Muhammad H. 1973. Grammatical gender: Its origin and development. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2015. From cumulative to separative exponence in inflection: Reversing the morphological cycle. Language 91(3). 676–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2000. Grammatical gender from east to west. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. II: Manifestations of gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), 699–708. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2009a. Greek-Turkish language contact in Asia Minor. Études helléniques / Hellenic Studies 171: 37–54.Google Scholar
. 2009b. Watkins’ Law and the development of agglutinative inflections in Asia Minor Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 91. 93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1955. Growth and structure of the English language. 9th ed. London: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2006. On the roles of Turkic in the Caucasus area. In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective, 160–181. Hampshire: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1988. Grammatical gender in English: 950 to 1250. London, New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2009. The loss of grammatical gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 1071. 196–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective. PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
. 2014. On the diachrony of gender in Asia Minor Greek: The development of semantic gender in Pontic. Language Sciences 431. 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2000. Inflectional classes, morphological restructuring, and the dissolution of Old English grammatical gender. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. II: Manifestations of gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), 709–727. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael & David A. Zubin. 1984. Sechs Prinzipien für die Genuszuweisung im Deutschen: ein Beitrag zur natürlichen Klassifikation. Linguistische Berichte 931. 26–50.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages. Vol. 2: Grammar and typology, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2015. Contact-induced change. In Matthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 251–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusmenko, Jurij K. 2000. Entwicklung des Genussystems in den skandinavischen Sprachen. In Fritz Paul (ed.), Arbeiten zur Skandinavistik. 13. Arbeitstagung der deutschsprachigen Skandinavistik, 469–479. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. II1: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1945. The influence of Cushitic on the Semitic languages of Ethiopia: A problem of substratum. Word 11. 59–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1952. The influence of Sidamo on the Ethiopic languages of Gurage. Language 28(1). 63–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45(2). 435–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Diachronic and areal typology of gender and other agreement systems. Lecture given at the Università di Macerata, 8–9 April 2008 (online: [URL], accessed 21.06.2017).
. 2014. Nominal agreement in PIE from the areal and typological point of view. In Sergio Neri & Roland Schuhmann (eds.), Studies on the collective and feminine in Indo-European from a diachronic and typological perspective, 233–255. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. An areal typology of agreement systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 31–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Universals of structural borrowing. In Peter Siemund (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 204–233. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, William K. 1956. The Latvian element in modern Livonian. In Margarete Woltner and Herbert Bräuer (eds.), Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag, 307–318. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 61. 125–166.Google Scholar
. 2002. What happened to English? Diachronica 9(2). 217–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1926 [1919]. Le genre grammatical et l’élimination de la flexion. In Antoine Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 199–210, Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Middle English dialectology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. II1: 1066–1476, 156–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirković, Jelena, Maryellen C. McDonald & Mark Seidenberg. 2005. Where does gender come from? Evidence from a complex inflectional system. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(1/2). 139–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Ruth Spriggs. 2000. Gender in Teop (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. I: Approaches to gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), 321–349. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1997. Kitúba. In Sarah G. Thomason (ed.), Contact languages: A wider perspective, 173–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2012. Contacts between indigenous languages in South America. In Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds.), The indigenous languages of South America: A comprehensive guide, 235–258. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Diachronically stable structural features. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, 337–355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponelis, Fritz. 1993. The development of Afrikaans (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 18). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Stephen Levey. 2010. Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation. Vol. 1: Theories and methods, 391–419. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don & Joseph F. Eska. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Paul T. 1993. The formation of Afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 271. 1–112.Google Scholar
2002. Convergence and the formation of Afrikaans. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14(1). 57–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubino, Carl. 1997. A reference grammar of Ilocano. PhD thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 15–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph C. 1992. The evolution of gender assignment from ohg to nhg . In Rosina Lippi-Green (ed.), Recent developments in Germanic linguistics, 81–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmons, Joseph C. & Thomas C. Purnell. 2010. Contact and the development of American English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 454–477. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandström, Caroline. 2000. The changing system of grammatical gender in the Swedish dialects of Nyland, Finland. In Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in grammar and cognition. II: Manifestations of gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), 793–806. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1992. Language decay and contact-induced change: Similarities and differences. In Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, 59–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schapper, Antoinette. 2010. Neuter gender in eastern Indonesia. Oceanic Linguistics 49(2). 407–435.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2011. Bora loans in Resígaro: Massive morphological and little lexical borrowing in a moribund Arawakan language (Cadernos de Etnolingüística. Série Monografias 2). Online: [URL] (accessed 04.02.2018).
Singer, Ruth. 2012. Do nominal classifiers mediate selectional restrictions? An investigation of the function of semantically based nominal classifiers in Mawng (Iwaidjan, Australian). Linguistics 50(5). 955–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smits, Caroline. 1996. Disintegration of inflection: The case of Iowa Dutch. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Sollid, Hilde, Philipp Conzett & Åse Mette Johansen. 2014. Gender and noun inflection: The fate of ‘vulnerable’ categories in Northern Norwegian. In Kurt Braummüller, Steffen Höder & Karoline Kühl (eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factors and mechanisms (Studies in Language Variation 16), 179–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Anthi Revithiadou & Giorgos Markopoulos. 2013. From fusion to agglutination in Asia Minor: The curious case of Asia Minor Greek. Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists, Geneva, 21–27 July 2013.
Stilo, Donald L. 2005. Iranian as buffer zone between the universal typologies of Turkic and Semitic. In Éva Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaksson & Carina Jahani (eds.), Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic, and Turkic, 35–63. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2012. Survival in a niche: On gender-copy in Chamorro (and sundry languages). In Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka (eds.), Morphologies in contact, 93–140. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Stucky, Susan U. 1978. How a noun class system may be lost: Evidence from Kituba (lingua franca Kikongo). Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8(1). 216–233.Google Scholar
Sundermann, Werner. 1989. Mittelpersisch. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum, 138–164. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Indonesian. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 301–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1980. Morphological instability, with and without language contact. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 17), 359–372. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. A typology of contact languages. In Arthur K. Spears & Donald Winford (eds.), The structure and status of pidgins and creoles, 71–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thordarson, Fridrik. 1989. Ossetic. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum, 456–479. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
. 2009. Ossetic grammatical studies. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 2003. The noun phrase: Nouns, determiners and modifiers; pronouns and names. In José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque (Mouton Grammar Library 26), 113–170. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1999. Language contact and the function of linguistic gender. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 331. 133–152.Google Scholar
. 2009. Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 98–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Gender maintenance and loss in Totenmålet, English, and other major Germanic varieties. In Terje Lohndal (ed.), In search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 77–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact (Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft 19). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
van Marle, Jaap. 1995. On the fate of adjectival declension in Overseas Dutch (with some notes on the history of Dutch). In Henning Andersen (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, 283–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1988 [1945]. Substrat et convergence dans l’évolution linguistique. Remarques sur l’évolution et la structure de l’arménien, du géorgien, de l’ossète et du turc. In Even Hovdhaugen & Fridrik Thordarson (eds.), Linguistique caucasienne et arménienne ( Studia caucasologica II ), 177–192. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Wells, Spencer et al. 2001. The Eurasian heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(18). 10244–10249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren & Eric W. Holman. 2009. Temporal stability of linguistic typological features. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 22(2). 373–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubin, David A. & Klaus-Michael Köpcke. 1981. Gender: A less than arbitrary grammatical category. In Roberta A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 30–May 1, 1981, 439–449. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Bakker, Peter
2023. Empiricism against imperialism. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages DOI logo
Baló, Márton A. & Zuzana Bodnárová
2023. Gender reduction in contact. Diachronica 40:5 ► pp. 578 ff. DOI logo
Feleke, Tekabe Legesse & Terje Lohndal
2023. Gender variation across the Oromo dialects: A corpus‐based study*. Studia Linguistica 77:3 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
Shcherbakova, Olena, Susanne Maria Michaelis, Hannah J. Haynie, Sam Passmore, Volker Gast, Russell D. Gray, Simon J. Greenhill, Damián E. Blasi & Hedvig Skirgård
2023. Societies of strangers do not speak less complex languages. Science Advances 9:33 DOI logo
Berdicevskis, Aleksandrs, Arturs Semenuks & Vera Kempe
2022. Imperfect language learning reduces morphological overspecification: Experimental evidence. PLOS ONE 17:1 ► pp. e0262876 ff. DOI logo
Madariaga, Nerea & Olga Romanova
2022. Simplifying grammatical gender in inflectional languages: Odessa Russian and beyond. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 67:2 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Salaberri, Iker
2020. Hebetic ioan gabe ene buruya: zenbait gogoeta buru hitzaren erabilera anaforikoen eta bihurkarien diakroniaz. Fontes Linguae Vasconum :130 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.