Cover not available
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 [email protected].

Published online: 23 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19043.car
References (122)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 239–251. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2018. Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1). 281–296. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice C. Harris. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the Prehistory of Grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38(3). 599–618. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
. 2019. Mouton atlas of languages and cultures. Vol. 1: Europe and West, Central and South Asia. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd & Chundra Cathcart. 2021. Reconstructing the evolution of Indo-European grammar. Language. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra, Gerd Carling, Filip Larsson, Niklas Johansson & Erich Round. 2018. Areal pressure in grammatical evolution. Diachronica 35(1). 1–34. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2). 261–96. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra. 2013. Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verderasiatische Archäologie 1021. 207–303. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective (Cambridge studies in linguistics 74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral. In Heiko Harrog & Berndt Heine (eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, 97–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars (Oxford linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian T. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1). 23–62. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2019. Computational historical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 45(3/4). 151–182. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49(1). 47–66. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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
. 2012. Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL].
Matasović, Ranko. 2013. Latin paenitet me, miseret me, pudet me and active clause alignment in Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen (118). 93–110. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W. B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Linguistics and Language Compass 3(1). 480–508. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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 – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Rasmus. 2002. Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Systematic Biology (5). 729–739. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, A. 1987. The chimera of Proto-Indo-European ergativity. Lessons for historical syntax. Lingua 71(1–4). 297–318. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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). DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Kevin & Claire Bowern. 2015. Quantifying uncertainty in the phylogenetics of Australian numeral systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1815). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Carling, Gerd, Sandra Cronhamn, Olof Lundgren, Victor Bogren Svensson & Johan Frid
2023. The evolution of lexical semantics dynamics, directionality, and drift. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.