Cover not available
Part of
Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony
Edited by Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga
[Typological Studies in Language 121] 2018
► pp. 111–128

Chapter 3
Deconstructing teleology

The place of synchronic usage patterns among processes of diachronic development

| University of California, Santa Barbara
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
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.03mit
References (29)
References
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.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2011. Implicational hierarchies. In The Handbook of Language Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 190–205. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Direct and indirect explanations of typological regularities: The case of alignment variations. Folia Linguistica 42: 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frachtenberg, Leo. 1913. Coos Texts [Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology l].Google Scholar
. 1914. Lower Umpqua Texts and Notes on the Kusan dialect [Columbia Contributions to Anthropology 4].Google Scholar
. 1922a. Coos. Handbook of American Indian Languages 2: 297–429.Google Scholar
. 1922b. Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua). Handbook of American Indian Languages 2: 431–629.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Heizer, Robert. 1978. California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melville. 1939. Coos narrative and ethnologic texts. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8(1): 1–126.Google Scholar
. 1940. Coos myth texts. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8(2): 127–360.Google Scholar
Kopris, Craig. 2001. A Grammar and Dictionary of Wyandot. PhD dissertation, SUNY Buffalo.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberly, Western Australia). Lingua 116: 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals 15: 25–140. Stanford CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.
Verbeke, Saartje 2013. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2009. The rise of ergativity in Hindi: Assessing the role of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 30:1–24.Google Scholar
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. DOI logo
Onea, Edgar
2023. Virginia Hill and Alexandru Mardale: The diachrony of Differential Object Marking in Romanian . Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Ballarè, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
2022. The development of locative relative markers. Studies in Language 46:1 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Toro, Francisca, Verónica Orqueda & Demian Inostroza
2022. Reevaluating the etymology of Latin reflexives. Folia Linguistica 56:s43-s1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
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. 4 ff. DOI logo
Rose, Françoise
2018. Chapter 8. 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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.