In:Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony
Edited by Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga
[Typological Studies in Language 121] 2018
► pp. 111–128
Chapter 3Deconstructing teleology
The place of synchronic usage patterns among processes of diachronic development
Published online: 26 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.03mit
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.03mit
Abstract
A central issue in typology is the role of implicational hierarchies
in shaping individual languages. One view is that the hierarchies
guide language change, or at least constrain it: “Since a hierarchy
constrains what is a possible language, it is also a constraint on
language change, because languages move from one possible state to
another” (Corbett 2011).
Other approaches take a different perspective: “Hierarchies simply
capture the outputs of independent diachronic processes” (Cristofaro & Zúñiga this
volume). Here the relationship between typology and
diachrony is examined with respect to the most frequently-cited
hierarchies, the cluster of Referential/Topicality/Animacy/Empathy
hierarchies. While such hierarchies might appear to drive diachronic
development in some single-step changes, multi-step developments are
a different matter.
Article outline
- 1.The hierarchies
- 2.Number
- 2.1Number developments in Iroquoian
- 2.2Stimulus
- 3.Head marking
- 4.Alignment splits
- 4.1 Reanalysis of instruments
- 4.2Reanalysis of passives
- 5.Hierarchies as constraints on change?
- 6.Conclusion
Appendix References
References (29)
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the
typology of grammatical relations. In Case and Grammatical Relations. Papers in Honor of
Bernard Comrie, Greville Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds), 191–210. Oxford: OUP.
Corbett, Greville. 2011. Implicational hierarchies. In The Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 190–205. Oxford: OUP.
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological
regularities: The case of alignment
variations. Folia Linguistica 42: 1–38.
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence
in diachronic perspective. In Language across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna
Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 69–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cristofaro, Sonia & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2018 Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to
typological hierarchies. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and
Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language 121], Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking:
Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77–114.
. 1914. Lower Umpqua Texts and Notes on the Kusan
dialect [Columbia Contributions to Anthropology
4].
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful
elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Heizer, Robert. 1978. California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Jacobs, Melville. 1939. Coos narrative and ethnologic
texts. University of Washington Publications in
Anthropology 8(1): 1–126.
Langacker, Ronald. 1977.
Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar,
Vol. 1: An Overview of Uto-Aztecan
Grammar
[SIL Publications in Linguistics 56]. Dallas TX: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington.
McGregor, William. 2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa
(Kimberly, Western Australia). Lingua 116: 393–423.
McLaughlin, John. 2013. Central Numic innovations in dual number
marking. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual
Meeting, Boston.
Mithun, Marianne. 2005. Ergativity and language contact on the Oregon
Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coos. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26: 77–95. Berkeley CA: BLS.
. 2013. Prosody and independence: Free and bound person
marking. In Language across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna
Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 291–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Oklahoma
Cherokee. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Moravcsik, Edith. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals 15: 25–140. Stanford CA: Stanford University.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and
ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric 1974. The plurality split. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society, Michael La Galy, Robert Fox & Anthony Bruck (eds), 657–71. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Cristofaro, Sonia
2024. Diachronic pathways to case marking alignment and what they mean for the explanation of synchronic cross-linguistic
patterns. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 142 ff.
Onea, Edgar
Ballarè, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
Toro, Francisca, Verónica Orqueda & Demian Inostroza
Cristofaro, Sonia & Fernando Zúñiga
2018. Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological
hierarchies. In Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 3 ff.
Rose, Françoise
2018. Are the Tupi-Guarani hierarchical indexing systems really motivated by the person hierarchy?. In Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 289 ff.
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.
