Article published In:
Demystifying New Methods in Historical Linguistics
Edited by Erich Round
[Diachronica 41:3] 2024
► pp. 379413
References (49)
References
Backus, Ad. 2014. Towards a usage-based account of language change: Implications of contact linguistics for linguistic theory. In Robert Nicolaï (ed.), Questioning language contact, 91–118. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabel Bril (ed.), Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: The syntax and pragmatics interface, 51–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kamal K. Choudhary, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10(8). e0132819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Johanna Nichols, Taras Zakharko, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Michael Rießler, Lennart Bierkandt, Fernando Zúñiga & John B. Lowe. 2022. The AUTOTYP database, version 1.1.0. Zenodo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2013. Relatedness as a factor in language contact. Journal of Language Contact 6(2). 411–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 231. 65–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra, Gerd Carling, Filip Larsson, Niklas Johansson & Erich Round. 2018. Areal pressure in grammatical evolution: An Indo-European case study. Diachronica 35(1). 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A. 2021. A sociolinguistic typology for languages in contact. In Enoch O. Aboh & Cécile B. Vigouroux (eds.), Variation rolls the dice: A worldwide collage in honour of Salikoko S. Mufwene, 2–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Garbo, Francesca, Eri Kashima, Ricardo Napoleão de Souza & Kaius Sinnemäki. 2021. Concepts and methods for integrating language typology and sociolinguistics. In Silvia Ballarè & Guglielmo Inglese (eds.), Tipologia e Sociolinguistica: verso un approccio integrato allo studio della variazione: Atti del Workshop della Società Linguistica Italiana 20 settembre 2020, 143–176. Milan: Officinaventuno. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Garbo, Francesca & Ricardo Napoleão de Souza. 2023. A sampling technique for worldwide comparisons of contact scenarios. Linguistic Typology 27(3). 553–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.) 2013. WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI logo Available online at [URL]
Dunn, Michael, Simon J. Greenhill, Stephen C. Levinson & Russel D. Gray. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473(7345). 79–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Easterday, Shelece. 2019. Highly complex syllable structure: A typological and diachronic study. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Easterday, Shelece & Ricardo Napoleão de Souza. 2015. Is there evidence for a hierarchy in the synchronic patterning of syllable onsets? 11th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology , Albuquerque, USA, August 1–3.
Fortescue, Michael D. 1998. Language relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 2011. Variation and change. In Warren Maguire & April McMahon (eds.), Analysing variation in English, 178–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guzmán Naranjo, Matías & Laura Becker. 2022. Statistical bias control in typology. Linguistic Typology 26(3). 605–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Nataliia. 2022. Phylogenetic signal and rate of evolutionary change in language structures. Royal Society Open Science 9(3). 211252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Johann-Mattis List. 2018. Using ancestral state reconstruction methods for onomasiological reconstruction in multilingual word lists. Language Dynamics and Change 8(1). 22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kashima, Eri, Francesca Di Garbo, Olesya Khanina & Ruth Singer. In review. The design principles of a sociolinguistic-typological questionnaire for language contact research. Language Dynamics and Change.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2010. Linguistic typology and language contact. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 568–590. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lesage, Jakob, Hannah J. Haynie, Hedvig Skirgård, Tobias Weber & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2022. Overlooked data in typological databases: What Grambank teaches us about gaps in grammars. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 2884–2890. Marseille: European Language Resources Association. [URL]
Levshina, Natalia. 2019. Token-based typology and word order entropy: A study based on Universal Dependencies. Linguistic Typology 23(3). 533–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
List, Johann-Mattis. 2019. Automated methods for the investigation of language contact, with a focus on lexical borrowing. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(10). e12355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüpke, Friederike. 2019. Language endangerment and language documentation in Africa. In H. Ekkehard Wolff (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of African linguistics, 468–490. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macklin-Cordes, Jayden L. & Erich R. Round. 2022. Challenges of sampling and how phylogenetic comparative methods help: With a case study of the Pama-Nyungan laminal contrast. Linguistic Typology 26(3). 533–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2013. Syllable structure. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI logo Available online at [URL]
Marten, Lutz & Malin Petzell. 2016. Linguistic variation and the dynamics of language documentation: Editing in ‘pure’ Kagulu. Language Documentation & Conservation 101. 105–129. [URL]
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A case for implicational universals. Linguistic Typology 7(1). 101–118. 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
McGhee, George R. 2011. Convergent evolution: Limited forms most beautiful. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2011. Skolt Saami: A typological profile. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja 2011(93). 111–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe. 2016. Sampling for variety. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 233–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoleão de Souza, Ricardo, Francesca Di Garbo, Kaius Sinnemäki, Eri Kashima, Noora Ahola, Anu Hyvönen & Oona Raatikainen. 2022. Typologizing contact effects on a global scale. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology , 15–17 December 2022, Austin, TX.
Napoleão de Souza, Ricardo & Kaius Sinnemäki. 2022. Beyond segment inventories: Phonological complexity and suprasegmental variables in contact situations. Journal of Language Contact 15(3–4). 439–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neureiter, Nico, Peter Ranacher, Nour Efrat-Kowalsky, Gereon A. Kaiping, Robert Weibel, Paul Widmer & Remco R. Bouckaert. 2022. Detecting contact in language trees: A Bayesian phylogenetic model with horizontal transfer. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9(1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2014. Heritage languages and their speakers: Looking ahead. In Marta Fairclough & Sara M. Beaudrie (eds.), Innovative approaches to heritage languages: From research to practice, 325–346. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. [URL]
R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ranacher, Peter, Nico Neureiter, Rik van Gijn, Barbara Sonnenhauser, Anastasia Escher, Robert Weibel, Pieter Muysken & Balthasar Bickel. 2021. Contact-tracing in cultural evolution: A Bayesian mixture model to detect geographic areas of language contact. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 18(181). 20201031. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 2014. The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius, Francesca Di Garbo, Eri Kashima, Ricardo Napoleão de Souza & T. Mark Ellison. 2023. Language contact effects in their multilingual ecology: A typological approach. A paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE) , 29 August–1 September 2023, Athens.
Sinnemäki, Kaius & Noora Ahola. 2023. Testing inferences about language contact on morphosyntax: A typological case study on Alorese–Adang contact. Transactions of the Philological Society 121(3). 513–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Catherine E. Travis. 2018. Bilingualism in the community: Code-switching and grammars in contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Johanna Nichols, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, Taras Zakharko & Balthasar Bickel. 2022. Managing AUTOTYP data: Design principles and implementation. In Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Bradley McDonnell, Eve Koller & Lauren B. Collister (eds.), The open handbook of linguistic data management, 631–642. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yakpo, Kofi. 2020. Social factors. In Evangelia Adamou & Yaron Matras (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language contact, 129–146. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2022. South Saami. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 113–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar