Article published In:
Journal of Historical LinguisticsVol. 14:1 (2024) ► pp.142–177
Thematic section
Diachronic pathways to case marking alignment and what they mean for the explanation of synchronic cross-linguistic patterns
Case marking alignment has been assumed to reflect principles of optimization: dedicated case marking is limited to arguments more in need of disambiguation, and semantically or pragmatically similar arguments are encoded by the same case forms. This view is based on the synchronic properties of the relevant alignment patterns and the cross-linguistic rarity of other logically possible ones, not diachronic phenomena involved in their emergence or cross-linguistic distribution. This paper explores several developmental processes that recurrently give rise to accusative, ergative, and active case marking alignment cross-linguistically, including reanalysis of argument structure, the development of case forms through grammaticalization or phonological reduction, and the extension of an existing case form to novel contexts. These processes appear to be driven by inherent or contextual properties of particular source constructions, independent of principles of optimization in the use of case marking. The synchronic properties of the resulting alignment patterns cannot be taken as evidence for such principles either, because they are due to inheritance (a case form inherits the distribution of particular source elements or developmental processes, which is unrelated to the assumed optimization principles) or residue (a case form becomes restricted to particular arguments as a new form develops for the other arguments, also independently of these principles). These facts call for a source-oriented approach to case marking alignment and recurrent cross-linguistic patterns in general, one where the focus shifts from the synchronic properties of individual patterns to unraveling the effects of several different diachronic phenomena that give rise to individual patterns and shape their cross-linguistic distribution over time.
Keywords: origins of case marking alignment, ergative, accusative, active, diachrony, typology
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The diachronic development of case marking alignment cross-linguistically
- 2.1Reanalysis of argument structure
- 2.2Development of case markers through grammaticalization
- 2.3Phonological processes
- 2.4Extension of existing case forms
- 2.5On the motivations for individual developmental processes
- 3.Explaining the synchronic properties of case marking alignment
- 3.1Inheritance and residue
- 3.2On NP-based alignment splits
- 4.Accounting for the cross-linguistic frequency of different alignment patterns
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
References
References (106)
Aissen, J.
2003 Differential
Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 211:435–483. 
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 21:11–31.
Baker, M.
2015 Case:
Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blake, B.
1987 Australian
Aborigenal Grammar. London: Croom Helm.
Blake, B. J.
2001 Case. 2nd
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blevins, J.
2004 Evolutionary
Phonology: The Emergence of Sound
Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bubenik, V.
Butt, M.
2006 Theories
of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J.
2006 Language
Change and Universals. Linguistic Universals ed.
by R. Mairal & J. Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2008 Formal
Universals as Emergent Phenomena: The Origins of Structure Preservation. Linguistic Universals
and Language Change ed. by J. Good, 108–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2009 Language
Universals and Usage-Based Theory. Language Universals ed.
by M. Christiansen, C. Collins & S. Edelman, 17–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. & C. Beckner
2015 Emergence
at the Cross-Linguistic Level: Attractor Dynamics in Language Change. The Handbook of Language
Emergence ed. by B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady, 183–200. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca
1994 The
Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chappell, H.
2013 Pan-Sinitic
Object Markers: Morphology and Syntax. Breaking Down the Barriers: Interdisciplinary Studies in
Chinese Linguistics and Beyond ed. by C. Guangshun, H. Chappell, R. Djamouri & T. Wiebusch, 785–816. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
2023 From
oblique to core case in the Southern Min languages: The role of topic in the emergence of optional object marking in
Sinitic. Journal of Historical
Linguistics 14:1.
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.
Chappell, H. & J.-C. Verstraete
2019 Optional
and Alternating Case Marking: Typology and Diachrony. Language and Linguistics
Compass 131.
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.
2013 Alignment
of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases. The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online ed. by M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. [URL]
Comrie, B. & T. Kuteva
2005 The
Evolution of Grammatical Structures and “Functional Need” Explanations. Language Origins:
Perspectives on Evolution ed. by M. Tallerman, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creissels, D.
2008 Direct
and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia
Linguistica 421:1–38.
Cristofaro, S.
2013 The
Referential Hierarchy: Reviewing the Evidence in Diachronic Perspective. Languages Across
Boundaries: Studies in the Memory of Anna Siewierska ed. by D. Bakker & M. Haspelmath, 69–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2017 Implicational
Universals and Dependencies Between Grammatical Phenomena. Dependencies in Language: On the
Causal Ontology of Linguistic Systems ed. by N. Enfield, 9–24. Berlin: Language Science Press.
2019 Taking
Diachronic Evidence Seriously: Result-Oriented vs. Source-Oriented Explanations of Typological
Universals. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature
of the Evidence ed. by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Croft, W.
2000 Explaining
Language Change: An Evolutionary
Approach. Harlow: Longman.
2003 Typology
and Universals. 2nd
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culbertson, J., J. Franck, G. Braquet, M. B. Navarro & I. Arnon
2020 A
Learning Bias for Word Order Harmony: Evidence from Speakers of NonHarmonic
Languages. Cognition 2041:104392.
Culbertson, J. & E. L. Newport
2017 Innovation
of Word Order Harmony Across Development. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive
Science 11:91–100.
Culbertson, J., P. Smolensky & G. Legendre
2012 Learning
Biases Predict a Word Order
Universal. Cognition 1221:306–329.
Cyffer, N.
1998 A
Sketch of Kanuri. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.
Dahl, E.
2016 The
Origin and Development of the Old Indo-Aryan Predicated -tá
Construction. Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic
Perspective ed. by E. Dahl & K. Stroński, 61–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2021 Pathways
to Split-Ergativity: The Rise of Ergative Alignment in Anatolian and
Indo-Aryan. Diachronica 381:413–456.
de Hoop, H. & A. L. Malchukov
2008 Case-Marking
Strategies. Linguistic
Inquiry 391:565–587.
DeLancey, S.
1981 An
Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related
Patterns. Language 571:626–657.
Dixon, R. M. W.
1977 The
Syntactic Development of Australian Languages. Mechanisms of Syntactic
Change ed. by C. Li, 365–415. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1979 Ergativity. Language 551:59–138.
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. A.
1985 Competing
Motivations. Iconicity in Syntax ed. By J. Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1987 The
Discourse Basis of
Ergativity. Language 631:805–855.
Eckardt, R.
2006 Meaning
Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic
Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, P.
2005 Grammatical
Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fedzechkina, M., T. F. Jaeger & E. L. Newport
2012 Language
Learners Restructure Their Input to Facilitate Efficient Communication. Proceedings of the
National Academy of
Sciences 1091:17897–17902.
Filimonova, E.
2005 The
Noun Phrase Hierarchy and Relational Marking: Problems and Counterevidence. Linguistic
Typology 91:77–113.
Fortescue, M.
1995 The
Historical Source and Typological Position of Ergativity in Eskimo
languages. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 191:61–75.
Gaby, A.
2008 Pragmatically
Case-Marked: Non-Syntactic Functions of the Thaayorre Ergative Suffix. Discourse and Grammar in
Australian Languages ed. by I. Mushin & B. Baker, 111–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garrett, A.
1990 The
Origin of NP Split
Ergativity. Language 661:261–296.
Gildea, S.
1998 On
Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban
Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T.
2001 Syntax:
An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goedegebuure, P.
2013 Split-Ergativity
in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
Archäologie 1021:270–303.
Grossman, E. & S. Polis
2018 Swimming
Against the Typological Tide or Paddling Along with Language Change?: Dispreferred Structures and Diachronic Biases in Affix
Ordering. Journal of Historical
Linguistics 81:388–443.
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.
2018 The
Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor
State. Linguistics 561:781–818.
Haig, G. & S. Schnell
2016 The
Discourse Basis of Ergativity
Revisited. Language 921:591–618.
Harris, A. C.
1985 Diachronic
Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press.
2002 Endoclitics
and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2008 On
the Explanation of Typologically Unusual Structures. Linguistic Universals and Language
Change ed. by J. Good, 59–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell
1995 Historical
Syntax in Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, M.
2019 Can
Cross-Linguistic Regularities Be Explained by Constraints on Change? Linguistic Universals and
Language Change ed. By K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Haspelmath, M. & the
APiCS Consortium
2013 Alignment of Case Marking of
Personal Pronouns. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures
Online ed. by S. M. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath & M. Huber. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemeyer
1991 Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hercus, L. A.
1982 The
Bagandji Language. (=
Pacific Linguistics,
B-67). Canberra: The Australian National University.
Holton, G.
2008 The
Rise and Fall of Semantic Alignment in Northern Halmahera, Indonesia. The Typology of Semantic
Alignment ed. by M. Donohue & S. Wichman, 252–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd
edition. 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.
Kulikov, L.
2006 Case
Systems in a Diachronic Perspective. Case, Valency and Transitivity ed.
by L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart, 23–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurumada, C. & S. Grimm
2019 Predictability
of Meaning in Grammatical Encoding: Optional Plural
Marking. Cognition 1911:103953.
Kurumada, C. & T. F. Jaeger
2015 Communicative
Efficiency in Language Production: Optional Case-Marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and
Language 831:152–178.
Li, C. N., J. O. Sawyer & S. A. Thompson
1977 Subject
and Word Order in Wappo. International Journal of American
Linguistics 431:85–100.
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 ed.
by Claudia Corum, Thomas Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser, 96–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
1974 An
Explanation of Word Order Change SVO→SOV. Foundations of
Language 121:201–214.
Lord, C.
Luraghi, S. & G. Inglese
2022 The
Origin of Ergative Case Markers: The Case of Hittite Revisited. Alignment and Alignment Change
in the Indo-European Family ed. by E. Dahl, 123–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malchukov, A.
2008 Split
Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)Establishing the
Connection. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed.
by M. Donohue & S. Wichmann, 76–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGregor, W. B.
2006 Focal
and Optional Ergative Marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western
Australia). Lingua 1161:393–423.
2008 Indexicals
as Sources of Case Markers in Australian Languages. Interdependence of Diachronic and
Synchronic Analyses ed. By F. Josephson & I. Söhrman, 299–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McMahon, A. S.
1994 Understanding
Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melis, C.
2021 From
Topic Marking to Definite Object Marking: Focusing on the Beginnings of Spanish
DOM. Differential Object Marking in Romance: The Third Wave ed.
by J. Kabatek, P. Obris & A. Wal, 39–64. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mithun, M.
1991 Active/Agentive
Case Marking and its
Motivation. Language 671:510–546.
2005 Ergativity
and Language Contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coosan. Proceedings of the
Berkeley Linguistic Society ed. By A. K. Simpson, 77–95. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
2008 The
Emergence of Agentive Systems in Core Argument Marking. The Typology of Semantic
Alignment ed by. M. Donohue & S. Wichmann, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2018 Deconstructing
Teleology. Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony ed.
by S. Cristofaro & F. Zúñiga, 111–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mithun, M. & W. Chafe
Moravcsik, E. A.
1978 On
the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative
Patterns. Lingua 451:233–279.
Newmeyer, F. J.
1992 Iconicity
and Generative
Grammar. Language 681:756–796.
Ohala, J. J.
1993 The
Phonetics of Sound Change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and
Perspectives ed. by C. Jones, 237–278. London: Longman.
2003 Phonetics
and Historical Phonology. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed.
by R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph, 669–686. Oxford: Blackwell.
Payne, J. R.
1980 The
Decay of Ergativity in Pamir
Languages. Lingua 511:147–186.
Pensado, C.
1995 La
creatión del complemento directo prepositional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas
románicas. El complemento directo preposicional ed
by. C. Pensado, 179–233. Madrid: Visor Libros.
Rhee, S.
2008 On
the Rise and Fall of Korean Nominalizers. Rethinking Grammaticalization: New
Perspectives ed. by M. J. López-Couso & E. Seoane, 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rohlfs, G.
1984 Von
Rom zur Romania: Aspekte und Probleme romanischer
Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Narr.
Sapir, E.
1926 A
Chinookan Phonetic Law. International Journal of American
Linguistics 41:105–110.
Schmidtke-Bode, K.
2019 Attractor
States and Diachronic Change in Hawkins’s Processing Typology. Explanation in Typology:
Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence ed.
by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 123–148. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Schmidtke-Bode, K. & E. Grossmann
2019 Diachronic
Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence: A Synthesis. Explanation in
Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence ed.
by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 223–241. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Seržant, I. A.
2019 Weak
Universal Forces: The Discriminatory Function of Case in Differential Object Marking
Systems. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of
the Evidence ed. by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 149–178. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Seržant, I. A. & G. Moroz
2022 Universal
Attractors in Language Evolution Provide Evidence for the Kinds of Efficiency Pressures
Involved. Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications 91:58.
Seržant, I. A. & D. Rafiyenko
2021 Diachronic
Evidence Against SourceOriented Explanation in Typology: Evolution of Prepositional Phrases in Ancient
Greek. Language Dynamics and
Change 111:167–211.
Silverstein, M.
1976 Hierarchy
of Features and Ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian
Languages ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborigenal Studies.
Slobin, D. I.
2002 Language
Evolution, Acquisition and Diachrony: Probing the Parallels. The Evolution of Language Out of
Pre-Language ed. by T. Givón & B. F. Malle, 375–392. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Song, J. J.
2001 Linguistic
Typology: Morphology and
Syntax. Harlow: Longman.
Stroński, K.
2011 Synchronic
and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in
IndoAryan. Poznan’: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza.
Verbeke, S.
2013 Alignment
and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan
Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Verbeke, S. & L. De Cuypere
2009 The
Rise of Ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the Role of Grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica
Historica 301:1–24.