Article published in:
Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 358–412

Evolutionary dynamics of Indo-European alignment patterns

| Lund University
| University of Zurich

This paper employs phylogenetic modeling to reconstruct the alignment system of Indo-European. We use a data set of categorical morphosyntactic features, which take states such as ‘nominative-accusative’, ‘active-stative’, or ‘ergative’. We analyze these characters with a standard Bayesian comparative phylogenetic method, inferring transition rates between character states on the basis of a phylogenetic representation of the languages in the data. Using these rates, we then reconstruct the probability of presence of traits at the root and nodes of Indo-European. We find that the most probable alignment system for Proto-Indo-European is a nominative-accusative system, with low probabilities of neutral marking and ergativity in the categories lower in grammatical hierarchies (nouns, past). Using a test of phylogenetic signal, we find that characters pertaining to categories higher in hierarchies show greater phylogenetic stability than categories lower in hierarchies. We examine our results in relation to theories of Proto-Indo-European alignment as well as to general typology.

Keywords: historical linguistics, evolutionary linguistics, Proto-Indo-European, linguistic typology, grammar evolution, alignment, syntactic reconstruction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The study: An overview
    • 1.2Comparative, typological and phylogenetic models of reconstruction
    • 1.3Indo-European alignment – reconstructions by comparative syntax
    • 1.4Marking and animacy hierarchies in alignment
    • 1.5General trends in the family
  • 2.Data, model and method
    • 2.1Data: Languages and coding models
    • 2.2The Bayesian phylogenetic comparative reconstruction model
    • 2.3The model for assessing phylogenetic stability across characters
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Result overview
    • 3.2Proto-language probabilities in the light of reconstruction by the comparative method and diachronic typology
    • 3.3Probability levels and grammatical hierarchies of alignment
    • 3.4Phylogenetic strength
    • 3.5Summary of results
  • 4.Concluding discussion: Reconstructing the evolution of alignment
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Appendices: Data and results
    • Appendix 1.
    • Appendix 2.
    • Appendix 3.
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 23 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19043.car
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2014 Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 343–373. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2009 The origin of the oblique subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages, 179–193. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the Comparative Method. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 257–308. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte
2000 Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 25). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2007 Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 239–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 191–210. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 51–101. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
2002 Autotypologizing databases and their use in fieldwork. In Peter Austin, H. Dry & P. Wittenburg (eds.), Proceedings of the International LREC Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics, Las Palmas. Nijmegen: ISLE and DOBES.Google Scholar
Bollback, J. P.
2006 SIMMAP: Stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 88 (2006) doi:  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borges, Rui, João Paulo Machado, Cidália Gomes, Ana Paula Rocha & Agostinho Antunes
2018 Measuring phylogenetic signal between categorical traits and phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2018 1–8.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco, Philippe Lemey, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Alexander V. Alekseyenko, Alexei J. Drummond, Russell D. Gray, Marc A. Suchard & Quentin D. Atkinson
2012 Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337(6097). 957–960. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire
2018 Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1). 281–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia & Anne David
2014 Descriptive grammar of Pashto and its dialects. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit
2016 On the establishment of ergative alignment during the Late Middle Indo-Aryan period. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stronski (eds.), Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 109–132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Calude, Andreea S. & Annemarie Verkerk
2016 The typology and diachrony of higher numerals in Indo-European: A phylogenetic comparative study. Journal of Language Evolution 1(2). 91–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris
2002 Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38(3). 599–618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd
2012 Development of form and function in a case system with layers: Tocharian and Romani compared. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 131. 57–76.Google Scholar
2017 DiACL – Diachronic Atlas of Comparative Linguistics Online. https://​diacl​.ht​.lu​.se/
2019 Mouton atlas of languages and cultures. Vol. 1: Europe and West, Central and South Asia. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd & Chundra Cathcart
2021 Reconstructing the evolution of Indo-European grammar. Language. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd, Filip Larsson, Chundra A. Cathcart, Niklas Johansson, Arthur Holmer, Erich Round & Rob Verhoeven
2018 Diachronic Atlas of Comparative Linguistics (DiACL) – A Database for Ancient Language Typology. PLOS ONE 13(10). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Bob, Andrew Gelman, Matthew D. Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt, Marcus Brubaker, Jiqiang Guo, Peter Li, & Allen Riddell
2017 Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. Journal of Statistical Software 76(1). 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra, Gerd Carling, Filip Larsson, Niklas Johansson & Erich Round
2018 Areal pressure in grammatical evolution. Diachronica 35(1). 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michaela
2009 Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Lakshmi Chelliah (eds.), The rope of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 307–346. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Will, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall & Andrew Garrett
2015 Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language, 91(1). 194–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James
2007 Indo-European linguistics: An introduction (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and universals (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein
2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stronski (eds.), Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 61–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński
2016a Ergativity in Indo-Aryan and beyond. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Strónski (eds.), Indo-Aryan Ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 1–37. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016b Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1893 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 3, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 1. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
1897 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 4, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 2. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
1900 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 5, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 3. Strassburg: Trübner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dench, Alan
1982 The development of an accusative case marking pattern in the Ngayarda languages of Western Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2(1). 43–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 2, Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget
1999 Alignment in Early Proto-Indo-European. In Carol F. Justus & Edgar C. Polomé (eds.), Language change and typological variation: In honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the occasion of his 83rd birthday (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Series, II), 464–500. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath
2013 The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://​wals​.info
Dunn, Michael
2014 Language phylogenies. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 190–211. Florence: Routledge.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, Joseph
1981 Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17(6). 368–376. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul
1975 Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements (Journal of Indo-European studies. Monograph 4). Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič Ivanov & Werner Winter
1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 80). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2). 261–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Aaron Halpern & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching second. Second position clitics and related phenomena, 85–133. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Donald B. Rubin
1992 Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science (4). 457–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra
2013 Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verderasiatische Archäologie 1021. 207–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson
2003 Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426 (6965). 435–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1963 Universals of language: Report of a conference held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13–15, 1961. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966 Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies (Janua linguarum: Series minor 59). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Quentin D. Atkinson, Andrew Meade & Russell D. Gray
2010 The shape and tempo of language evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 277 (1693). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C.
2008 Reconstruction in syntax. Reconstruction of patterns. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction, 73–95. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective (Cambridge studies in linguistics 74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2008 Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral. In Heiko Harrog & Berndt Heine (eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, 97–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars (Oxford linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hendery, Rachel
2012 Relative clauses in time and space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirt, Hermann Alfred
1934 Indogermanische Grammatik. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
2013 Proto-Indo-European verb-finality reconstruction, typology, validation. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(1). 49–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich & Brian D. Joseph
1996 Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 93). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hrozný, Bedřich
1915 Die Lösung des hethitischen Problems. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 561. 17–50.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., Rasmus Nielsen & Jonathan P. Bollback
2003 Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology 52(2). 131–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian T.
2010 Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1). 23–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1978 Stative and middle in Indo-European (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 23). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb (Oxford scholarship online). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard
2019 Computational historical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 45(3/4). 151–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klimov, Georgij Andreevich
1973a Očerk obščej teorii èrgativnosti. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Nauka.Google Scholar
1973b Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja i rekonstrukcija protoin-doevropejskogo. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija literatury i jazyka 321. 442–447.Google Scholar
1974 On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics (12), 11–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik
1983 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 111. 307–324.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans, Hans Schmeja & Wolfgang Meid
1972 Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 8). Innsbruck: Institut für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society (1). 97–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P.
1973 A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49(1). 47–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1974 Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1989 Problems of Proto-Indo-European grammar – Residues from Pre-Indo-European active structure. General Linguistics 291. 228–246.Google Scholar
Lopuhaä-Zwakenberg, Milan
2019 The Anatolian “ergative”. In Alwin Kloekhorst & Tijmen Pronk (eds.), The precursors of Proto-Indo-European. The Indo-Anatolian and Indo-Uralic Hypotheses (Leiden Studies in Indo-European), 131–150. Rodopi: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2011 The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45(2). 435–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1). 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2015 Towards a typology of split ergativity: A TAM-hierarchy for alignment splits. In Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej Malchukov & Marc D. Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective, 275–296. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André
1962 A functional view of language: Being the Waynflete lectures delivered in the College of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford 1961. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko
2011 Clause alignment in Indo-European. Manuscript. Zagreb: Zagreb University. http://​mudrac​.ffzg​.unizg​.hr​/~rmatasov​/ClauseAlignmentInPIE​.pdf.
Matasović, Ranko
2013 Latin paenitet me, miseret me, pudet me and active clause alignment in Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen (118). 93–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matasović, Ranko
2004 Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Maurits, Luke & Thomas L. Griffiths
2014 Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(37). 13576–13581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W. B.
2009 Typology of ergativity. Linguistics and Language Compass 3(1). 480–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meid, Wolfgang
1975 Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung, 204–219. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael, Matthias Fritz & Manfred Mayrhofer
2010 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard
2009 Zur Typologie des urindogermanischen Mediums. In Rosemarie Lühr & Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, vom 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004 in Krakau, 318–334. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 The Eurasian spread zone and the Indo-European dispersal. In Roger Blench & Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and language II. Archaeological data and linguistic hypotheses, 220–266. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Rasmus
2002 Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Systematic Biology (5). 729–739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pooth, Roland, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov & Jóhanna Barđdal
2019 The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 1241. 245–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian G.
2007 Diachronic syntax (Oxford textbooks in linguistics 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ronan, Patricia
2011 The Celtic languages. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive guide, 31–46. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, A.
1987 The chimera of Proto-Indo-European ergativity. Lessons for historical syntax. Lingua 71(1–4). 297–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schlerath, Bernfried
1981 Ist ein Raum/Zeit-Modell für eine rekonstruierte Sprache möglich?. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95(2). 175–202.Google Scholar
Schmalsteig, William R.
1981 Ergativity in Indo-European. In Yoël L. Arbeitman & Allan R. Bomhard (eds.), Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns, 243–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst
1979 Reconstructing active and ergative stages of Pre-Indo-European. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 333–345. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Silva, Sara Graça da & Jamshid J. Tehrani
2016 Comparative phylogenetic analyses uncover the ancient roots of Indo-European folktales. Royal Society Open Science 3(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald
1989 Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftl. Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C. Cornelis
1901 Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 121. 170–171.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A.
1936 L’Ergatif indo-européen. C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Walkden, George
2013 The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica, 30(1). 95–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1976 Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudoproblems. In Sanford Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, 305–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & De Cuypere, Ludovic
2009 The rise of ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the role of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica (43). 367–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & De Clercq, Eva
2016 Looking for ergativity in Indo-Aryan. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stronski (eds.), Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 39–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Villar, Francisco
1984 Ergativity and animate/inanimate gender in Indo-European. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97(2). 167–196.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta
2015 Historical syntax: Problems, materials, methods, hypotheses. In Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 3–34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Werner
1984 Reconstructional comparative linguistics and the reconstruction of undocumented stages in the development of languages and language families. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical syntax, 613–625. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Seržant, Ilja A.
2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Z.
2014 Molecular evolution: A statistical approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Kevin & Claire Bowern
2015 Quantifying uncertainty in the phylogenetics of Australian numeral systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1815). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evolutionary dynamics of Indo-European alignment patterns