The article examines the distribution and formal realization of Subject and Object agreement markers in different word order types on the basis of a sample of 237 languages. Special attention is paid to the genetic and areal stratification of agreement markers and the impact of these two parameters on the relationship between agreement and word order type emerging from this investigation as opposed to those of previous studies, especially that of Hawkins & Gilligan (1988) and Nichols (1992). The relationship between agreement and word order type is considered in the light of the currently entertained functional explanations for the presence of agreement which are put into question by the high incidence of agreement in V3 languages.
The formal realization of the agreement markers (their morphological form and also order relative to each other) in different word order types is investigated relative to the Universal Suffixing Preference, the Head Ordering Principle and the Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis. It is argued that though due to genetic and areal differences in the formal realization of agreement markers, none of the above three hypotheses concerning the relationship between the formal realization of affixal morphemes and word order type provide an adequate account of the cross-linguistic data, the Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis fares better than the other two, particularly in regard to the formal reflexes of object agreement markers.
By comparing the results stemming from our sample with those of other samples we seek to draw attention to how areal biases in samples may affect cross-linguistic generalizations. In doing so we hope to highlight the need for developing a sound sampling methodology.
2022. Statistical bias control in typology. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 605 ff.
Harris, A. & Z. Xu
2006. Diachronic Morphological Typology. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 509 ff.
Harris, Alice C. & Arthur G. Samuel
2024. Processing and production of affixes in Georgian and English: Testing a processing account of the suffixing preference. Journal of Linguistics► pp. 1 ff.
Holmberg, Anders
2010. Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian. Theoretical Linguistics 36:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Mykhaylyk, Roksolana
2010. Diachronic universals and morpheme order in the Ukrainian synthetic imperfective future. Morphology 20:2 ► pp. 359 ff.
Namtapi, Itsara & Nattama Pongpairoj
2016. The acquisition of L2 English non-null arguments by L1 Thai learners. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 37:3 ► pp. 150 ff.
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2003. ‘Basic Word Order’ in Formal and Functional Linguistics and the Typological Status of ‘Canonical’ Sentence Types. In Contrastive Analysis in Language, ► pp. 69 ff.
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2005. Commentary on Denis Bouchard, ‘exaption and linguistic explanation’. Lingua 115:12 ► pp. 1667 ff.
Sinnemäki, Kaius & Viljami Haakana
2023. Head and dependent marking and dependency length in possessive noun phrases: a typological study of morphological and syntactic complexity. Linguistics Vanguard 9:s1 ► pp. 45 ff.
Trommer, Jochen
2003. The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. In Yearbook of Morphology 2002 [Yearbook of Morphology, ], ► pp. 283 ff.
Zingler, Tim
2023. A functional approach to the formal mismatches of indexation markers. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42:2 ► pp. 373 ff.
[no author supplied]
2017. References. In The Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 737 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.