Cover not available

Introduction published In: Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 303–313

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Introduction

Aspects of Alignment Change

ORCiD logo with link | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway | Goethe-UniversitätFrankfurt a.M.


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 24 September 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21033.dah
References (54)
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2011. Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.). Grammatical change. Origins, nature, outcomes, 332–346. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Intransitivity and the development of ergative alignment. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 501–529. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl & Berthold Delbrück. 1893. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte desAltindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 3, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 1 Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1897. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 4, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 2. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1900. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen : kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen. Bd 5, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, T. 3 Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Ashwini Deo. 2017. Developments into and out of ergativity: Indo-Aryan diachrony. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 531–552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise & fall of ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.). 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2018. The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 59–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2016. The origin and development of the Old Indo-Aryan predicated -tá construction. In Eystein Dahl & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.). Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective, 63–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński (eds.). 2016. Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1979. Ergativity. Language 551. 59–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1. Clause structure, 224–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estival, Dominique & John Myhill. 1988. Formal and functional aspects of development from passive to ergative systems. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 441–491. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič & Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy : rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokulʹtury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical typological analysis of a protolanguage and a proto-culture]. Tbilisi: Izd. Tbilisskogo Univ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66(2). 261–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1997. Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. Diachronic syntax. The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1990. Alignment typology and diachronic change. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1987: Systematic balance in language: Papers from the Linguistic Typology Symposium, Berkeley, 1–3 Dec 1987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2013. Case in Semitic: Roles, relations, and reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann Alfred. 1934. Indogermanische Grammatik. T. 6, Syntax, 1: Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus un der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee A. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 711. 103–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1999. The structure of Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 1311. 11–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas. 1998. Old Tamil. In Sanford B. Steever (ed.), The Dravidian languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 1161. 393–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 480–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Grammaticalization of ergative case marking. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1985. Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Approaches to theory from the field, 324–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moravcik, Edith A. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45(3–4). 233–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1980. The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 511. 147–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.). 1979. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. The extended accusative/restricted nominative in perspective. In Frans Plank (ed.), Relational typology, 269–310. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Ergativity. In Joachim Jacobs et al. (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2, 1184–1199. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pott, A. F. 1873. Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven nominativs. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 71. 71–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ray, Sidney H. 1907. Reports of the Cambridge anthropological expedition to Torres Straits, Volume II: Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1896. Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasichen Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien), Philosophisch-historische Classe 133(1). 1–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trask, Larry R. 1979. On the origin of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations 385–404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, C. Cornelis. 1916. Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen von Noord-Amerika. Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afd. Letteren. 5e reeks. 187–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitman, John. 1997. Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. In Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 61, 161–178. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitman, John and Yuko Yanagida. 2012. The formal syntax of alignment change. In Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo & Juanito Avelar (eds.), Parameter theory and linguistic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 177–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko. 2018. Differential subject marking and its demise in the history of Japanese. In I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 403–425. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yanagida, Yuko & John Whitman. 2009. Alignment and word order in Old Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 181. 101–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zuñiga, Fernando. 2018. The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass 121. 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Inglese, Guglielmo
2025. The Diachrony of Alignment. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Cristofaro, Sonia & Guglielmo Inglese
2024. The diachronic emergence of alignment cross‑linguistically. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue