Cover not available

In:Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective
Edited by Eystein Dahl and Krzysztof Stroński
[Typological Studies in Language 112] 2016
► pp. 1–38

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Ergativity in Indo-Aryan and beyond

ORCiD logo with link | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway & Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
 | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway & Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112.01dah
This chapter gives an overview of the current state of the art of research on ergativity in Indo-Aryan. First, it discusses a number of theoretical and terminological issues concerning synchronic and diachronic dimensions of ergative alignment and outlines a typology for exploring the relationship between ergativity and other alignment types with particular reference to the South-Asian linguistic area. Second, it provides an overview of the Modern Indo-Aryan languages showing ergative alignment in parts of their verbal system and of the striking variation in this domain. Third, it explores the various hypotheses regarding the origin and development of ergative alignment in Indo-Aryan.
References (117)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673-711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435-483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1985. Die grammatische Kategorie Passiv im Altindischen: Ihre Funktion. In Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte, Benfried Schlerath (ed.), 47–57. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986a. Die ta-Partizipialkonstruktion bei Aśoka: Passiv oder Ergativ? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 75–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
, 1986b. The genitive agent in Rigvedic passive constructions. In Collectanea linguistica in honorem Adami Heinz [Prace Komisji Językoznawstwa 53], 9–13. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Subject and Topic, Charles Li (ed.), 3–23. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles Li (ed.), 317-363. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benveniste Emile, 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 48(1): 176-186.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 Case and Grammatical Relations. Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie [Typological Studies in Language 81], Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds), 191-210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yādava, Yogendra P. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110: 342-373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1989. On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 377–398.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. The Structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2001. A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. In Time Over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 105–141. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Theories of Case. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 2005. Evidential, raised possessor and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1970. The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) krtam . Language 46: 1–12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1974. The Indo-Aryan languages. Encyklopedia Britannica, 15th edn, 9: 439-450.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. The old Indo-Aryan tense system. JAOS 122 (Indic and Iranian Studies in Honor of Stanley Insler on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday): 235-243.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1970[1926]. The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 323–393. Texas TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2009. Semantische und pragmatisch-kontextuelle Faktoren in der Entwicklung des altindoarischen Perfekts. In Pragmatische Kategorien. Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Marburg, 24.-26.9.2007, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds), 35-50. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Exploring Inflectional Semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Evidence for evidentiality in Late Vedic. In Indic across the Millennia: from Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan. 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1-5 2009. Proceedings of the Linguistics Section, Jared Klein & Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds), 9-23 Bremen: Ute Hempen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Typological change in Vedic: The development of the Aorist from a perfective past to an immediate past. In Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 134], Folke Josephson & Ingemar Söhrman (eds), 261-298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014a. The development of the Vedic perfect: From anterior to inferential past. In Vedic and Sanskrit Historical Linguistics: Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, Jared Klein & Elizabeth Tucker (eds), 179-242. New Delhi: Motilal Banarshidas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. Partitive subjects and objects in Indo-Iranian and beyond. In Partitive Cases and Related Categories, Silvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds), 417-441. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein & Fedriani, Chiara. 2012. The argument structure of experience: Experiential constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 342-362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2008. Case Restriction on Control: Implications for Movement. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1 (1), 29-54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart (eds). 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar [North-Holland Linguistic Series 37] Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren (eds). 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224-275. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estival, Dominique & Myhill, John. 1988. Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 441-491 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9: 77–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1997. Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], Talmy Givón (ed.), 155-198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Castro Alves, Flávia. 2010. Nominative-absolutive: Counter-universal split ergativity in Jê and Cariban. In Ergativity in Amazonia [Typological Studies in Language Spike 89], Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds) 159-199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001a. Syntax, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001b. Syntax, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1951. Remarks on the Sanskrit Passive. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grierson, George A. 1903-1928. Linguistic Survey of India, Vols. I-XI. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1934. On the Modern Indo-Aryan Vernaculars, reprinted from the Indian Antiquary 60-62 (1931-1933). Bombay: British India Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gusain, Lakhan. 2004. Marwari. M�nchen: Lincom Europa. Languages of the World/Materials 427.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15: 535–567 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoernle, R. 1880. A Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages: With Special Reference to the Eastern Hindi Accompanied by a Language-map and a Table of Alphabets. London: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1986. P-oriented construction in Sanskrit. In South Asian Languages. Structure, Convergence Diglossia, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani Kumar Sinha (eds), 15–26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. 1991. On identyfying the conceptual restructuring of passive as ergative in Indo-Aryan. In Pāṇinian Studies. Professor S. D. Joshi Felicitation Volume, Madhav M. Deshpande & Saroja Bhate (eds), 177- 199. Ann Arbor MI: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Kesar of Layul: A central Asian epic in the Shina of Gultari. In Studies in Pakistani Popular Culture, William Hanaway & Wilma Heston (eds), 121-183. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel and Lok Virsa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson (eds). 2014. Special thematic issue on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. 1979a. Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196-219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979b. The case of the agent in Indo-European. Die Sprache 25: 129-143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. The tense of the predicated past participle in Vedic and beyond. Indo-Iranian Journal 33: 1-19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Lurching towards ergativity: Expressions of agency in the Niya Documents. Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 63(1): 64-80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katre, Sumitra M. 1968. Problems of Reconstruction in Indo-Aryan. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Ludmila V. 1995. The development of patient-oriented constructions in late western NIA languages. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 21: 15–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Ergativity attrition in the history of western new Indo–Aryan languages (Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajastahani). The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2001: 159–184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Syntactic peculiarities of Rajasthani. Paper read at the 17th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies, Heidelberg, September 9–14. <[URL]>
. 2006. Sintaktičeskaja evolucija zapadnych novoindijskich jazykov v 15–20 vv. In Aspekty komparativistiki [Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta Vostočnych Kultur i Antičnosti: Vypusk VIII], Anna V. Dybo, Vladimir A. Dybo, Oleg A. Mudrak & George S. Starostin (eds), 151–186. Moskva: Rosijskij Gosudarstvennyj Gumanitarnyj Universitet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam H. 1978. Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative. In Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting , 204–216. Chicago IL: CLS.
Klimov, Georgij A. 1972. K xarakteristike jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4: 3–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1973. Očerk obščej teorii èrgativnosti. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. Principy kontensivnoj tipologii. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A. & Edel’man, Džoj I. 1970. Jazyk burushaski. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Chao. 2007. Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 117: 1462–1482. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magier David. 1983. Topics in the Grammar of Marwari. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. In Case, Valency and Transitivity, Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 329-357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity. Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1979. Aryan and non-Aryan elements in North Indian agriculture. In Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, Madhav M. Deshpande & Peter E. Hook (eds), 55–151. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Center for South Asian and Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 480–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120: 1610–1636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1981. Some functional relations among subordination, mood, aspect and focus in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 175–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meščaninov, Ivan I. 1967. Ergativnaja konstrukcija v jazykach različnych tipov. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miltner, Vladimir. 1965. From OIA passive to NIA active. Asian and African Studies 1: 143–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67: 510–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie. 2004. Oblique main arguments in Hindi /Urdu as localizing predications. In Non-Nominative Subjects, Vol. 2[Typological Studies in Language 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 33–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The evolution of the tense-aspect system in Hindi/Urdu, and the status of the ergative alignment. In Proceedings of the LFG 06 Conference. Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 365–385. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2004. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114: 1186–1212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Case semantics and the agent-patient opposition. In Case, Valency and Transitivity, Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 309-327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nigam, R.C. 1972. Language Handbook on Mother Tongue in Census (Census of India 1971) [Census centenary Monograph No 10]. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique. 2002. The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1980. The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages. Lingua 51: 147–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pali and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Grammatische Relationen in Pali und die Entstehung von Ergativit�t im Indoarischen. Historische Sprachforschung, 112/2: 227�263.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pirejko, Lija A. 1968. Osnovnyje voprosy ergativnosti na materiale indoiranskich jazykov. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pray, Bruce. 1976. From passive to ergative in NIA. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra Verma (ed.), 195–211. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Regamey, Constantin. 1954. A propos de la “construction ergative” en indo-aryen moderne. In Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung, Festschrift Albrecht Debrunner, gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, Redard George (ed.), 363–381. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šamatov, Azad N. 1974. Klassičeskij dakxini. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shackle, Christopher. 1979. Problems of classification in Pakistan Punjab. Transactions of the Philological Society 1979: 191-210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Srishti, Recha. 2006. Reflecting AGREE: Hindi-Urdu reflexives. In Western Conference of Linguistics (WECOL) 2006 Proceedings, Vol.17, Erin Bainbridge & Brian Agbayani (eds), 361-72. Fresno CA: California State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skalmowski, Wojciech. 1974. Transitive verb constructions in the Pamir and Dardic languages. Studia Indoeuropejskie. Prace komisji Językoznawstwa 37: 205–212.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Southworth, Franklin C. 2005. Linguistic Archeology of South Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speijer, J.S. 1998[1886]. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2010. Variation of ergativity patterns in Indo-Aryan. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46(2): 237–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1988. On Burushaski and other ancient substrata in Northwest South Asia. Studia Orientalia (Helsinki) 64: 303–325.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trask, R. Larry. 1979. On the origin of ergativity. In Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 385–404. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, Ralph L. 1975. Collected Papers, 1912-1973. London: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje. 2013a. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 51]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013b. Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics 51(3): 585 – 610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. (ed.). 1976. The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2]. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Hinüber, Oskar. 1968. Studien zur Kasussyntax des Pāli, besonders des Vinaya-Piṭaka. München: Kitzinger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Vreese, Koenraad S.J.M. 1959. Apabhraṃśa studies (III). Journal of the American Oriental Society 79(1): 7-16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight, 1888. Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witzel, Michael. 1989. Tracing the vedic dialects. In Dialectes dans les langues indo-aryennes, Colette Caillat (ed.), 97-265. Paris: College de France, Institut de Civilisation Indienne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parameters. In Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, George Erdosy (ed.), 85-125. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Substrate languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and LateVedic). Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 5(1): 1–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zakharyin, Boris. 1979. On the formation of ergativity in Indo-Aryan and Dardic. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 5: 50–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. Problemy jazykovych kontaktov w indijskich Gimalajach. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Serija 13, Vostokovedenije 3: 31–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Carling, Gerd & Chundra Cathcart
2021. Evolutionary dynamics of Indo-European alignment patterns. Diachronica 38:3 ► pp. 358 ff. DOI logo
Eliasson, Pär & Marc Tang
2018. The lexical and discourse functions of grammatical gender in Marathi . Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Zúñiga, Fernando
2018. The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:9 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 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