Introduction published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 14:1 (2024) ► pp.5865
References
Anderson, S. R.
2005Morphological Universals and Diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 ed. by G. Booij & J. van Marle, 1–17. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016Synchronic vs. Diachronic Explanations and the Nature of the Language Faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics 2 1:11–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W.
1992Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Ver- gleichende Grammatik im Rahmen der Verbserialisierung, der Grammatikalisierung und der Attraktorpositionen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bubenik, V.
Bybee, J.
1988The Diachronic Dimension in Explanation. Explaining Language Universals ed. by J. A. Hawkins, 350–379. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006Language Change and Universals. Linguistic Universals ed. by R. Mairal & J. Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H.
2013Pan-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.Google Scholar
Chappell, H., A. Peyraube & Y. Wu
2011A Comitative Source for Object Markers in Sinitic Languages: kai55 in Waxiang and kang7 in Southern Min. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 201:291–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coghill, E.
2016The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Creissels, D.
2008Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica 421:1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S.
2012Cognitive Explanations, Distributional Evidence, and Diachrony. Studies in Language 361:645–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Competing 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, E.
2021aAspects of Alignment Change. Diachronica 38:3.303–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021bPathways to Split Ergativity. Diachronica 38:3.413–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2022aAlignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022bAlignment 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S.
1981An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns. Language 571:626–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1979Ergativity. Language 551:59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M.
2006Functionalism 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.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John A.
1985Competing Motivations. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. A.
1987The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 631:805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, S.
1998On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
1979On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2001Syntax: An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, G.
2008Alignment Change in Iranian Languages; A Construction Grammar Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Deconstructing Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed. by J. Coon, D. Massam & L. D. Travis. 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C.
1985Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell
1995Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. E.
1997Beyond Subject and Object: Towards a Comprehensive Relational Typology. Linguistic Typology 11:279–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, C.
2008Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson
1973Serial 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.Google Scholar
1974An Explanation of Word Order Change SVO → SOV Foundations of Language 121:201–214.Google Scholar
Lord, C.
1993Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M.
1991Active / Agentive Case Marking and Its Motivation. Language 671:510–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. & W. Chafe
1999What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23:3.569–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A.
1978On the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative Patterns. Lingua 451:233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroński, K. K.
2021Typology and Diachrony of Converbs in Indo-Aryan. Diachronica 38:3.437–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S.
2013Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, F.
2018The Diachrony of Morphosyntactic Alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:9.e12300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar