Part of
Valence Changes in Zapotec: Synchrony, diachrony, typologyEdited by Natalie Operstein and Aaron Huey Sonnenschein
[Typological Studies in Language 110] 2015
► pp. 1–6
Edited by Natalie Operstein and Aaron Huey Sonnenschein
[Typological Studies in Language 110] 2015
► pp. 1–6
Chapter 1. Foreword
Rethinking perspectives in typology
References (21)
Arka, I Wayan & Ross, Malcolm (eds). 2005. The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 239–251. 
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Explaining Language Universals, John Hawkins (ed.), 350-379. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds). 2000. Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: CUP.
Geisler, Hans & Daniel, Jacob (eds). 1998. Transitivität und Diathese in romanischen Sprachen [Linguistische Arbeiten 392]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1969. Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Substance and Structure of Language, Jaan Puhvel (ed.), 147–203. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
. 1979. Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Language 55(2): 275-290.
Guxman, Mirra Moiseevna. 1964. Razvitie zalogovyx protivopostavlenij v germanskix jazykax: Opyt istoriko-tipologičeskogo issledovanija rodstvennyx jazykov (The development of voice oppositions in Germanic languages: an historic and typological study of genetically related languages). Moskva: Nauka.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1966. Are there universals of linguistic change? In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 30–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2002. Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Åbo: Åbo Akademis Tryckeri.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds), 171-202. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kulikov, Leonid. 2010. Bridging typology and diachrony: a preliminary questionnaire for a diachronic typological study of voice and valency-changing categories. In Problemy grammatiki i tipologii: sbornik statej pamjati Vladimira Petroviča Nedjalkova (1928–2009) (Issues in grammar and typology: a memorial volume for Vladimir Nedjalkov),Valentin F. Vydrin, Sergej Ju. Dmitrenko, Natal’ja M. Zaika, Sergej S. Saj, Nina R. Sumbatova & Viktor S. Xrakovskij (eds), 139-163. Moscow: Znak.
Lazard, Gilbert. 1998. Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (with the assistance of Emma Š. Geniušienė & Zlatka Guentchéva) (eds). 2007. Reciprocal Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2): 149-211.
Norman, Boris Justinovič. 1972. Perexodnost’, zalog, vozvratnost’ (na materiale bolgarskogo i drugix slavjanskix jazykov) (Transitivity, voice, reflexivity (evidence from Bulgarian and other Slavic languages)). Minsk: Izdatel’stvo BGU.
Operstein, Natalie. 2014. Origin of the Zapotec causative marker *k-: a diachronic-typological perspective. International Journal of American Linguistics 80: 99–114.
Ramat, Paolo. 1987. Linguistic Typology. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5: 477-487.
Wouk, Fay & Ross, Malcolm (eds). 2002. The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.