Introduction published In:
Journal of Historical LinguisticsVol. 14:1 (2024) ► pp.58–65
Thematic section
The diachronic emergence of alignment cross‑linguistically
Theoretical and empirical perspectives
This article is available free of charge.
References (41)
Anderson, S. R. 2005. Morphological
Universals and Diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 ed.
by G. Booij & J. van Marle, 1–17. Dordrecht: Springer. 
2016. Synchronic
vs. Diachronic Explanations and the Nature of the Language Faculty. Annual Review of
Linguistics
2
1:11–31.
Bisang, W. 1992. Das
Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Ver- gleichende Grammatik im Rahmen der Verbserialisierung, der
Grammatikalisierung und der
Attraktorpositionen. Tübingen: Narr.
Bubenik, V. 1998. A
Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan
(Apabrahmśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. 1988. The
Diachronic Dimension in Explanation. Explaining Language Universals ed.
by J. A. Hawkins, 350–379. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
2006. Language
Change and Universals. Linguistic Universals ed. by R. Mairal & J. Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chappell, H. 2013. Pan-Sinitic
Object Markers: Morphology and Syntax. Breaking Down the Barriers: Interdisciplinary Studies in
Chinese Linguistics and Beyond ed. by G. Cao, H. Chappell, R. Djamouri & T. Wiebusch, 785–816. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Chappell, H., A. Peyraube & Y. Wu. 2011. A
Comitative Source for Object Markers in Sinitic Languages: kai55 in Waxiang and kang7 in Southern
Min. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 201:291–338.
Coghill, E. 2016. The
Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment
Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B. 1989. Language
Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd
edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Creissels, D. 2008. Direct
and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia
Linguistica 421:1–38.
Cristofaro, S. 2012. Cognitive
Explanations, Distributional Evidence, and Diachrony. Studies in
Language 361:645–670.
2014. Competing
Motivations and Diachrony: What Evidence for What Motivations? Competing Motivations in Grammar
and Usage ed. by B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, and E. Moravcsik, 282–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, E. 2021a. Aspects
of Alignment
Change. Diachronica 38:3.303–313.
2021b. Pathways
to Split
Ergativity. Diachronica 38:3.413–456.
(ed.). 2022a. Alignment
and Alignment Change in the Indo-European
Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2022b. Alignment
and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family and Beyond. Alignment and Alignment Change in
the Indo-European Family ed. by E. Dahl, 1–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeLancey, S. 1981. An
Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related
Patterns. Language 571:626–657.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 551:59–138.
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, M. 2006. Functionalism
and the Metalanguage – Theory Confusion. Phonology, Morphology, and the Empirical Imperative:
Papers in Honour of Bruce Derwing ed. by G. W. G. Libben, T. Priestly, R. Smyth & S. Wang, 27–59. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.
Du Bois, John A. 1985. Competing Motivations. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J. A. 1987. The
Discourse Basis of
Ergativity. Language 631:805–855.
Gildea, S. 1998. On
Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban
Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T. 1979. On
Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
2001. Syntax:
An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haig, G. 2008. Alignment
Change in Iranian Languages; A Construction Grammar
Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2017. Deconstructing
Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed.
by J. Coon, D. Massam & L. D. Travis. 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic
Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press.
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell. 1995. Historical
Syntax in Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kibrik, A. E. 1997. Beyond
Subject and Object: Towards a Comprehensive Relational Typology. Linguistic
Typology 11:279–346.
König, C. 2008. Case
in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1973. Serial
Verb Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: Coordination or Subordination? You Take the High Node
and I will Take the Low Node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival, Chicago Linguistics
Society ed. by C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser, 96–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
. 1974. An
Explanation of Word Order Change SVO → SOV Foundations of
Language 121:201–214.
Lord, C. 1993. Historical
Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mithun, M. 1991. Active
/ Agentive Case Marking and Its
Motivation. Language 671:510–546.
Mithun, M. & W. Chafe. 1999. What
are S, A, and O? Studies in
Language 23:3.569–596.
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. On
the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative
Patterns. Lingua 451:233–279.
Stroński, K. K. 2021. Typology
and Diachrony of Converbs in
Indo-Aryan. Diachronica 38:3.437–501.
Verbeke, S. 2013. Alignment
and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan
Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zúñiga, F. 2018. The
Diachrony of Morphosyntactic Alignment. Language and Linguistics
Compass 12:9.e12300.