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. 1–28

Synchronic vs. diachronic approaches to typological hierarchies

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Typological hierarchies: Some traditional explanations and open issues
  • 3.Synchronic distributional patterns and their diachronic sources
  • 4.Multiple diachronic origins
  • 5.Accounting for exceptions
  • 6.Concluding remarks: Diachronic vs. synchronic explanations of typological hierarchies
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.int
References (79)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2016. Synchronic vs. Diachronic Explanations and the Nature of the Language Faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 11–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic patterns: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals. Language 67: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The Atoms of Language. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & McCloskey, James. 2007. On the relation of typology to theoretical syntax. Linguistic Typology 11: 285–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11: 239–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2014. Evolutionary phonology and the life cycle of voiceless sonorants. <[URL]>
. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Explaining Language Universals, John A. Hawkins (ed.), 350–379. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006. Language change and universals. In Linguistic Universals, Ricardo Mairal & Juana Gil (eds), 179–194. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 108–121. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal. Folia Linguistica 1: 61–74.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2018. The obligatory coding principle in diachronic perspective. 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
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2011. Language universals and linguistic knowledge. In Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 227–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in the Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 69–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Competing motivations and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? In MacWhinney, Malchukov & Moravcsik (eds), 282–298.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Implicational universals and dependencies between grammatical phenomena. In Dependencies in Language: On the Causal Ontology of Linguistic Systems, Nicholas Enfield (ed.), 9–24. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57: 626–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Functionalism and the metalanguage – Theory confusion. In Phonology, Morphology, and the Empirical Imperative: Papers in Honour of Bruce Derwing, Grace Wiebe, Gary Libben, Tom Priestly, Ron Smyth & Sam Wang (eds), 27–59. Taipei: The Crane.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John A. 1985. Competing motivations. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], John Haiman (ed.), 343–366. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66: 261–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics (54): 483–529.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language Universals, with Particular Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1978. Diachrony, synchrony and language universals. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 1: Method and Theory, Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles H. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsick (eds), 62–91. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1995. The diachronic typological approach. In Approaches to Language Typology, Masayoshi Shibatani & Theadora Bynon (eds), 145–166. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, Aaron. 2018. Diachrony and the referential hierarchy in Old Irish. 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
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Occurrence of nominal plurality. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Bernard Comrie, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 142–145. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 185–214. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In Richards & Malchukov (eds), 39–53.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994. A Performance Theory of Word Order and Constituency. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1996. Pragmatic skewing in 1<->2 pronominal combinations in native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64: 83–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Song, Kyung An. 2011. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 47: 1–44. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Holton, Gary. 2008. The rise and fall of semantic alignment in Northern Halmahera, Indonesia. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment , Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 252–276. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2011. A panchronic study of aspirated fricatives, with new evidence from Pumi. Lingua 121: 1518–1538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. On the directionality of analogy in a Dhegiha paradigm. International Journal of American Linguistics 82: 239–248.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; Change results in typological generalizations. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 23–53. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2014. Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles. Studies in Language 38: 437–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, Hunter T. & Macaulay, Monica. 2012. Prominence hierarchies. Language and Linguistics Compass 36: 431–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith (eds). 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2000. A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 4: 307–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaud, Alexis, Jacques, Guillaume & Rankin, Robert L. 2012. Historical transfer of nasality between consonantal onset and vowel: From C to V or from V to C? Diachronica 29: 201–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991a. Active / agentive case marking and its motivation. Language 67: 510–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991b. The develoment of bound pronominal paradigms. In Language Typology 1988: Typological Models in Reconstruction [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 81], Winfred P. Lehmann & Helen-Jo Jakusz Hewitt (eds), 85–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Reconstructing the unidentified. In Historical Linguistics 1989 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 106] Henk Aertsen & Robert J. Jeffers (eds), 329–347. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Functional perspectives on syntactic change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Richard D. Janda & Brian D. Joseph (eds), 552–572. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Ergativity and language contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coosan. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 77–95. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 2008. The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), The Typology of Semantic Alignment, 297–333. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Deconstructing teleology: The place of synchronic usage patterns among processes of diachronic development. 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
Mithun, Marianne & Chafe, Wallace. 1999. What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23: 569–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45: 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002. Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally-based optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 43–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Possible and Probable Languages. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc & Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Scales. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
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], Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborigenal Studies.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard D. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment [Typological Studies in Language 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Deixis and alignment: How many hierarchies, really? Evidence from several Algonquian languages. In Richards & Malchukov (eds), 99–129.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Chappell, Hilary
2024. From oblique to core case in the Southern Min languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 66 ff. DOI logo
Ballarè, Silvia & Guglielmo Inglese
2022. The development of locative relative markers. Studies in Language 46:1 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Berman, Ruth A. & Elitzur Dattner
2020. Introduction. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mithun, Marianne
2018. Chapter 3. Deconstructing teleology. In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 111 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 26 june 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.