Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 14:1 (2024) ► pp.142177
References
Aissen, J.
2003Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 211:435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 21:11–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.
2015Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, B.
1987Australian Aborigenal Grammar. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Blake, B. J.
2001Case. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J.
2004Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bubenik, V.
Butt, M.
2006Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
2006Language Change and Universals. Linguistic Universals ed. by R. Mairal & J. Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Formal Universals as Emergent Phenomena: The Origins of Structure Preservation. Linguistic Universals and Language Change ed. by J. Good, 108–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Language Universals and Usage-Based Theory. Language Universals ed. by M. Christiansen, C. Collins & S. Edelman, 17–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & C. Beckner
2015Emergence 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca
1994The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H.
2013Pan-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.Google Scholar
2023From 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.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
Chappell, H. & J.-C. Verstraete
2019Optional and Alternating Case Marking: Typology and Diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 131. 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
2013Alignment 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
2005The Evolution of Grammatical Structures and “Functional Need” Explanations. Language Origins: Perspectives on Evolution ed. by M. Tallerman, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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.
2013The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Implicational 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.Google Scholar
2019Taking 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.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
2000Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2003Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., J. Franck, G. Braquet, M. B. Navarro & I. Arnon
2020A Learning Bias for Word Order Harmony: Evidence from Speakers of NonHarmonic Languages. Cognition 2041:104392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J. & E. L. Newport
2017Innovation of Word Order Harmony Across Development. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 11:91–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., P. Smolensky & G. Legendre
2012Learning Biases Predict a Word Order Universal. Cognition 1221:306–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cyffer, N.
1998A Sketch of Kanuri. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Dahl, E.
2016The Origin and Development of the Old Indo-Aryan Predicated - Construction. Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective ed. by E. Dahl & K. Stroński, 61–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, H. & A. L. Malchukov
2008Case-Marking Strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 391:565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S.
1981An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns. Language 571:626–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1977The Syntactic Development of Australian Languages. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change ed. by C. Li, 365–415. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979Ergativity. Language 551:59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. A.
1985Competing Motivations. Iconicity in Syntax ed. By J. Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 631:805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R.
2006Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, P.
2005Grammatical Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedzechkina, M., T. F. Jaeger & E. L. Newport
2012Language Learners Restructure Their Input to Facilitate Efficient Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1091:17897–17902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, E.
2005The Noun Phrase Hierarchy and Relational Marking: Problems and Counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91:77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M.
1995The Historical Source and Typological Position of Ergativity in Eskimo languages. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 191:61–75.Google Scholar
Gaby, A.
2008Pragmatically 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A.
1990The Origin of NP Split Ergativity. Language 661:261–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, S.
1998On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
2001Syntax: An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, P.
2013Split-Ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 1021:270–303. 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
2018The Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor State. Linguistics 561:781–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, G. & S. Schnell
2016The Discourse Basis of Ergativity Revisited. Language 921:591–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C.
1985Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008On the Explanation of Typologically Unusual Structures. Linguistic Universals and Language Change ed. by J. Good, 59–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell
1995Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
2019Can 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.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. & the APiCS Consortium
2013Alignment 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
1991Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hercus, L. A.
1982The Bagandji Language. (= Pacific Linguistics, B-67). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Holton, G.
2008The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott
2003Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. 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
Kulikov, L.
2006Case Systems in a Diachronic Perspective. Case, Valency and Transitivity ed. by L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart, 23–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, C. & S. Grimm
2019Predictability of Meaning in Grammatical Encoding: Optional Plural Marking. Cognition 1911:103953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, C. & T. F. Jaeger
2015Communicative Efficiency in Language Production: Optional Case-Marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 831:152–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., J. O. Sawyer & S. A. Thompson
1977Subject and Word Order in Wappo. International Journal of American Linguistics 431:85–100. 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 ed. by Claudia Corum, Thomas Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser, 96–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1974An Explanation of Word Order Change SVOSOV. Foundations of Language 121:201–214.Google Scholar
Lord, C.
1993Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S. & G. Inglese
2022The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A.
2008Split 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W. B.
2006Focal and Optional Ergative Marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 1161:393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Indexicals 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. S.
1994Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melis, C.
2021From 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M.
1991Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivation. Language 671:510–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005Ergativity 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.Google Scholar
2008The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Deconstructing Teleology. Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony ed. by S. Cristofaro & F. Zúñiga, 111–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. & W. Chafe
1999What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 231:569–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A.
1978On the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative Patterns. Lingua 451:233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
1992Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language 681:756–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J.
1993The Phonetics of Sound Change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives ed. by C. Jones, 237–278. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2003Phonetics and Historical Phonology. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph, 669–686. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. R.
1980The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 511:147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensado, C.
1995La 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.Google Scholar
Rhee, S.
2008On the Rise and Fall of Korean Nominalizers. Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives ed. by M. J. López-Couso & E. Seoane, 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G.
1984Von Rom zur Romania: Aspekte und Probleme romanischer Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sapir, E.
1926A Chinookan Phonetic Law. International Journal of American Linguistics 41:105–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K.
2019Attractor 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.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. & E. Grossmann
2019Diachronic 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.Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A.
2019Weak 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.Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & G. Moroz
2022Universal Attractors in Language Evolution Provide Evidence for the Kinds of Efficiency Pressures Involved. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 91:58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & D. Rafiyenko
2021Diachronic Evidence Against SourceOriented Explanation in Typology: Evolution of Prepositional Phrases in Ancient Greek. Language Dynamics and Change 111:167–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M.
1976Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborigenal Studies.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
2002Language 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, J. J.
2001Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Stroński, K.
2011Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in IndoAryan. Poznan’: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza.Google Scholar
Verbeke, S.
2013Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S. & L. De Cuypere
2009The Rise of Ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the Role of Grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 301:1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar