Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 14:1 (2024) ► pp.142–177
Thematic section

Diachronic pathways to case marking alignment and what they mean for the explanation of synchronic cross-linguistic patterns

ORCID logo | Sorbonne Université
Case marking alignment has been assumed to reflect principles of optimization: dedicated case marking is limited to arguments more in need of disambiguation, and semantically or pragmatically similar arguments are encoded by the same case forms. This view is based on the synchronic properties of the relevant alignment patterns and the cross-linguistic rarity of other logically possible ones, not diachronic phenomena involved in their emergence or cross-linguistic distribution. This paper explores several developmental processes that recurrently give rise to accusative, ergative, and active case marking alignment cross-linguistically, including reanalysis of argument structure, the development of case forms through grammaticalization or phonological reduction, and the extension of an existing case form to novel contexts. These processes appear to be driven by inherent or contextual properties of particular source constructions, independent of principles of optimization in the use of case marking. The synchronic properties of the resulting alignment patterns cannot be taken as evidence for such principles either, because they are due to inheritance (a case form inherits the distribution of particular source elements or developmental processes, which is unrelated to the assumed optimization principles) or residue (a case form becomes restricted to particular arguments as a new form develops for the other arguments, also independently of these principles). These facts call for a source-oriented approach to case marking alignment and recurrent cross-linguistic patterns in general, one where the focus shifts from the synchronic properties of individual patterns to unraveling the effects of several different diachronic phenomena that give rise to individual patterns and shape their cross-linguistic distribution over time.
Keywords: origins of case marking alignment, ergative, accusative, active, diachrony, typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The diachronic development of case marking alignment cross-linguistically
    • 2.1Reanalysis of argument structure
    • 2.2Development of case markers through grammaticalization
    • 2.3Phonological processes
    • 2.4Extension of existing case forms
    • 2.5On the motivations for individual developmental processes
  • 3.Explaining the synchronic properties of case marking alignment
    • 3.1Inheritance and residue
    • 3.2On NP-based alignment splits
  • 4.Accounting for the cross-linguistic frequency of different alignment patterns
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 12 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.22029.cri
References (106)
References
Aissen, J. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 211:435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 2005. Morphological Universals and Diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 ed. by G. Booij & J. van Marle, 1–17. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Synchronic vs. Diachronic Explanations and the Nature of the Language Faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics 21:11–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2015. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, B. 1987. Australian Aborigenal Grammar. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Blake, B. J. 2001. Case. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bubenik, V. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabrahms’a). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, M. 2006. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2006. Language Change and Universals. Linguistic Universals ed. by R. Mairal & J. Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Formal Universals as Emergent Phenomena: The Origins of Structure Preservation. Linguistic Universals and Language Change ed. by J. Good, 108–121. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Language Universals and Usage-Based Theory. Language Universals ed. by M. Christiansen, C. Collins & S. Edelman, 17–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & C. Beckner. 2015. Emergence at the Cross-Linguistic Level: Attractor Dynamics in Language Change. The Handbook of Language Emergence ed. by B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady, 183–200. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. 2013. Pan-Sinitic Object Markers: Morphology and Syntax. Breaking Down the Barriers: Interdisciplinary Studies in Chinese Linguistics and Beyond ed. by C. Guangshun, H. Chappell, R. Djamouri & T. Wiebusch, 785–816. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
2023. From oblique to core case in the Southern Min languages: The role of topic in the emergence of optional object marking in Sinitic. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1.Google Scholar
Chappell, H., A. Peyraube & Y. Wu. 2011. A Comitative Source for Object Markers in Sinitic Languages: kai55 in Waxiang and kang7 in Southern Min. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 201:291–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H. & J.-C. Verstraete. 2019. Optional and Alternating Case Marking: Typology and Diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coghill, E. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2013. Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online ed. by M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. [URL]
Comrie, B. & T. Kuteva. 2005. The Evolution of Grammatical Structures and “Functional Need” Explanations. Language Origins: Perspectives on Evolution ed. by M. Tallerman, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D. 2008. Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica 421:1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S. 2013. The Referential Hierarchy: Reviewing the Evidence in Diachronic Perspective. Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in the Memory of Anna Siewierska ed. by D. Bakker & M. Haspelmath, 69–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Implicational Universals and Dependencies Between Grammatical Phenomena. Dependencies in Language: On the Causal Ontology of Linguistic Systems ed. by N. Enfield, 9–24. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
2019. Taking Diachronic Evidence Seriously: Result-Oriented vs. Source-Oriented Explanations of Typological Universals. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence ed. by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., J. Franck, G. Braquet, M. B. Navarro & I. Arnon. 2020. A Learning Bias for Word Order Harmony: Evidence from Speakers of NonHarmonic Languages. Cognition 2041:104392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J. & E. L. Newport. 2017. Innovation of Word Order Harmony Across Development. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 11:91–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., P. Smolensky & G. Legendre. 2012. Learning Biases Predict a Word Order Universal. Cognition 1221:306–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cyffer, N. 1998. A Sketch of Kanuri. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Dahl, E. 2016. The Origin and Development of the Old Indo-Aryan Predicated -tá Construction. Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective ed. by E. Dahl & K. Stroński, 61–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, H. & A. L. Malchukov. 2008. Case-Marking Strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 391:565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1981. An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Patterns. Language 571:626–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. The Syntactic Development of Australian Languages. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change ed. by C. Li, 365–415. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Ergativity. Language 551:59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. A. 1985. Competing Motivations. Iconicity in Syntax ed. By J. Haiman, 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 631:805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, P. 2005. Grammatical Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedzechkina, M., T. F. Jaeger & E. L. Newport. 2012. Language Learners Restructure Their Input to Facilitate Efficient Communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1091:17897–17902. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, E. 2005. The Noun Phrase Hierarchy and Relational Marking: Problems and Counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 91:77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M. 1995. The Historical Source and Typological Position of Ergativity in Eskimo languages. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 191:61–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaby, A. 2008. Pragmatically Case-Marked: Non-Syntactic Functions of the Thaayorre Ergative Suffix. Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages ed. by I. Mushin & B. Baker, 111–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A. 1990. The Origin of NP Split Ergativity. Language 661:261–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, S. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction: Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goedegebuure, P. 2013. Split-Ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 1021:270–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossman, E. & S. Polis. 2018. Swimming Against the Typological Tide or Paddling Along with Language Change?: Dispreferred Structures and Diachronic Biases in Affix Ordering. Journal of Historical Linguistics 81:388–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Deconstructing Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed. by J. Coon, D. Massam & L. D. Travis, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. The Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor State. Linguistics 561:781–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, G. & S. Schnell. 2016. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity Revisited. Language 921:591–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 1985. Diachronic Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. On the Explanation of Typologically Unusual Structures. Linguistic Universals and Language Change ed. by J. Good, 59–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2019. Can Cross-Linguistic Regularities Be Explained by Constraints on Change? Linguistic Universals and Language Change ed. By K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. & the APiCS Consortium. 2013. Alignment of Case Marking of Personal Pronouns. Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online ed. by S. M. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath & M. Huber. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hercus, L. A. 1982. The Bagandji Language. (= Pacific Linguistics, B-67). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Holton, G. 2008. The Rise and Fall of Semantic Alignment in Northern Halmahera, Indonesia. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed. by M. Donohue & S. Wichman, 252–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1997. Beyond Subject and Object: Towards a Comprehensive Relational Typology. Linguistic Typology 11:279–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, C. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, L. 2006. Case Systems in a Diachronic Perspective. Case, Valency and Transitivity ed. by L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart, 23–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, C. & S. Grimm. 2019. Predictability of Meaning in Grammatical Encoding: Optional Plural Marking. Cognition 1911:103953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurumada, C. & T. F. Jaeger. 2015. Communicative Efficiency in Language Production: Optional Case-Marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 831:152–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., J. O. Sawyer & S. A. Thompson. 1977. Subject and Word Order in Wappo. International Journal of American Linguistics 431:85–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1973. Serial Verb Constructions in Mandarin Chinese: Coordination or Subordination? You Take the High Node and I Will Take the Low Node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival ed. by Claudia Corum, Thomas Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser, 96–103. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1974. An Explanation of Word Order Change SVO→SOV. Foundations of Language 121:201–214.Google Scholar
Lord, C. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S. & G. Inglese. 2022. The Origin of Ergative Case Markers: The Case of Hittite Revisited. Alignment and Alignment Change in the Indo-European Family ed. by E. Dahl, 123–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A. 2008. Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)Establishing the Connection. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed. by M. Donohue & S. Wichmann, 76–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, W. B. 2006. Focal and Optional Ergative Marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 1161:393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Indexicals as Sources of Case Markers in Australian Languages. Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses ed. By F. Josephson & I. Söhrman, 299–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melis, C. 2021. From Topic Marking to Definite Object Marking: Focusing on the Beginnings of Spanish DOM. Differential Object Marking in Romance: The Third Wave ed. by J. Kabatek, P. Obris & A. Wal, 39–64. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1991. Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivation. Language 671:510–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Ergativity and Language Contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coosan. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society ed. By A. K. Simpson, 77–95. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Emergence of Agentive Systems in Core Argument Marking. The Typology of Semantic Alignment ed by. M. Donohue & S. Wichmann, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Deconstructing Teleology. Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony ed. by S. Cristofaro & F. Zúñiga, 111–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. & W. Chafe. 1999. What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 231:569–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. On the Distribution of Ergative and Accusative Patterns. Lingua 451:233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1992. Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language 681:756–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1993. The Phonetics of Sound Change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives ed. by C. Jones, 237–278. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Phonetics and Historical Phonology. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph, 669–686. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. R. 1980. The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 511:147–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pensado, C. 1995. La creatión del complemento directo prepositional y la flexión de los pronombres personales en las lenguas románicas. El complemento directo preposicional ed by. C. Pensado, 179–233. Madrid: Visor Libros. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhee, S. 2008. On the Rise and Fall of Korean Nominalizers. Rethinking Grammaticalization: New Perspectives ed. by M. J. López-Couso & E. Seoane, 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1926. A Chinookan Phonetic Law. International Journal of American Linguistics 41:105–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. 2019. Attractor States and Diachronic Change in Hawkins’s Processing Typology. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence ed. by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 123–148. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. & E. Grossmann. 2019. Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence: A Synthesis. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence ed. by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 223–241. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A. 2019. Weak Universal Forces: The Discriminatory Function of Case in Differential Object Marking Systems. Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence ed. by K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. M. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant, 149–178. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & G. Moroz. 2022. Universal Attractors in Language Evolution Provide Evidence for the Kinds of Efficiency Pressures Involved. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 91:58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & D. Rafiyenko. 2021. Diachronic Evidence Against SourceOriented Explanation in Typology: Evolution of Prepositional Phrases in Ancient Greek. Language Dynamics and Change 111:167–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborigenal Studies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 2002. Language Evolution, Acquisition and Diachrony: Probing the Parallels. The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language ed. by T. Givón & B. F. Malle, 375–392. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, J. J. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Harlow: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroński, K. 2011. Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in IndoAryan. Poznan’: Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza.Google Scholar
Verbeke, S. 2013. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S. & L. De Cuypere. 2009. The Rise of Ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the Role of Grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 301:1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar