Commentary in:
Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 8392
References

References

Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Choudhary, K. K., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.
(2015) The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0132819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S.
(2014) Competing motivation models and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? In B. Mac Whinney, A. L. Malchukov & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 282–298). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Taking diachronic evidence seriously. Result-oriented vs. source-oriented explanations of typological universals. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 25–46). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1999) Adaptation, optimality and diachrony. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 206–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2003) Typology and universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48: 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, M.
(2010) Linguistic typology and the study of language. In J. Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 50–65). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C.
(2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Chee, So W., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C.
(2008) The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 9163–9168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1983) Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1998) The semantic development of old presents: New futures and subjunctives without grammaticalization. Diachronica 15(1): 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 180–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In B. MacWhinney, A. L. Malchukov & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 197–208). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change? In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 1–23). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.
(2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, Ch. & Jaeger, T. F.
(2015) Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 83: 152–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maslova, E.
(2000) A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 4: 307–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2020) Language contact. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A.
(2010) Explaining language universals. In J. Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 66–83). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, J.
(1992) Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K.
(2019) Attractor states and diachronic change in Hawkins’s “Processing Typology”. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 123–148). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. & Grossman, E.
(2019) Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence: A synthesis. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 223–241). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & Rafiyenko, D.
(2020) Diachronic evidence against source-oriented explanation in typology. Evolution of prepositional phrases in Ancient Greek. Language Dynamics and Change, 11(2), 167–210.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar