Cover not available
Introduction published In:
Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 303–313

Introduction

Aspects of Alignment Change

ORCID logo | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway | Goethe-Universität


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 24 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21033.dah
References
Aldridge, Edith
2011 Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.). Grammatical change. Origins, nature, outcomes, 332–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Intransitivity and the development of ergative alignment. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
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, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl & Berthold Delbrück
1893 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte desAltindischen, 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.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo
2017 Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan diachrony. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor
2016 The rise & fall of ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis
(eds.) 2017 The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2018 The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 59–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein
2016 The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.). Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński
(eds.) 2016 Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1972 The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 Ergativity. Language 551. 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
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
(eds.) 2008 The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2007 Clause types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1. Clause structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estival, Dominique & John Myhill
1988 Formal and functional aspects of development from passive to ergative systems. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 441–491. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič & Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič
1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy : rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokulʹtury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical typological analysis of a protolanguage and a proto-culture]. Tbilisi: Izd. Tbilisskogo Univ.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
1990 The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2). 261–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike
1997 Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2017 Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C.
1981 Georgian syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985 Diachronic syntax. The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Alignment typology and diachronic change. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1987: Systematic balance in language: Papers from the Linguistic Typology Symposium, Berkeley, 1–3 Dec 1987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2013 Case in Semitic: Roles, relations, and reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirt, Hermann Alfred
1934 Indogermanische Grammatik. T. 6, Syntax, 1: Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus un der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee A.
1987 The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 711. 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars
1999 The structure of Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A.
1974 On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 1311. 11–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
2003 The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas
1998 Old Tamil. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2006 Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 1161. 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 480–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Grammaticalization of ergative case marking. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca
1985 Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Approaches to theory from the field, 324–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcik, Edith A.
1978 On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45(3–4). 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R.
1980 The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 511. 147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1979 Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1985 The extended accusative/restricted nominative in perspective. In Frans Plank (ed.), Relational typology, 269–310. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Ergativity. In Joachim Jacobs et al. (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2, 1184–1199. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pott, A. F.
1873 Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven nominativs. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 71. 71–94.Google Scholar
Ray, Sidney H.
1907 Reports of the Cambridge anthropological expedition to Torres Straits, Volume II: Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo
1896 Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasichen Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien), Philosophisch-historische Classe 133(1). 1–91.Google Scholar
Trask, Larry R.
1979 On the origin of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations 385–404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C. Cornelis
1916 Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen von Noord-Amerika. Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afd. Letteren. 5e reeks. 187–216.Google Scholar
Whitman, John
1997  Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. In Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 61, 161–178. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Whitman, John and Yuko Yanagida
2012 The formal syntax of alignment change. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 177–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko
2018 Differential subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. In I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman
2009 Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 181. 101–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuñiga, Fernando
2018 The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass 121. 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar