Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:53:32.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Typology and Historical Linguistics

from Part I - Domains of Linguistic Typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2017

By
Silvia Luraghi
Edited by
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald  and
R. M. W. Dixon
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
Affiliation:
James Cook University, North Queensland
R. M. W. Dixon
Affiliation:
James Cook University, North Queensland
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology , pp. 95 - 123
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Grammars in contact, pp. 1–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. 2001. Introduction. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, pp. 1–26. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1993. Word order in a free word order language: The case of Jiwarli. Unpublished ms., Latrobe University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2001. Configurationality and polysynthesis. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, Vol. II, pp. 1433–41. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bauer, Anna. 2011. Verberststellung im Hethitischen. In Krisch, Thomas and Lindner, Thomas (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der 13. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, pp. 39–48. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2006. The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: A historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic Linguistics 45: 311.Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt (M.): Andreäsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N. 1898/1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Available online at: www.bosworthtoller.com.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1891. Zur Frage der Entstehung des grammatischen Geschlechtes. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 15: 523–31.Google Scholar
Budassi, Marco. 2014. La semantica della preposizione per nell’italiano antico. Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining language universals, pp. 350–79. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Typology and reconstruction. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, pp. 74–97. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2001. What language features can be ‘borrowed’? In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, pp. 412–36. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Devine, Andrew M. and Stephens, Laurence D.. 2000. Discontinuous syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehret, Christofer. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, tone, consonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Series 1). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Ivanov, Vjaceslav V.. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture, 2 vols. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Originally published in 1984 as Indoevropeiskij jazyk i indoevropeitsi. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Gensler, Orin. 2014. A typological look at Egyptian *d > ʕ. In Grossman, Eitan, Haspelmath, Martin and Richter, Tonio Sebastian (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic in typological perspective, pp. 187–202. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike. (ed.). 2000. Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godefroy, Frederic. 1982. Lexique de l’Ancien Français. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. [1963] 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of grammar, pp. 73–113. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2013. Typology. In Vossen, Rainer (ed.), The Khoesan languages, pp. 25–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 54–76. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, pp. 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew. 2012. Syntactic conditions on null arguments in the Indo-European Bible translations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44: 129–41.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans H. 2010. Typology and universals. In Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, pp. 59–69. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1973. Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glotta 7: 141–66.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2008. Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 253–84. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Buschmann.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1958. Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, pp. 17–35. Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. Review of W. P. Lehmann 1974. Language 52: 982–8.Google Scholar
Sir Jones, William. 1786. Published in Works, Vol. I, pp. 19–34, London, 1799. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/worksofsirwillia01jone. Reprinted in Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.), A reader in nineteenth century historical Indo-European linguistics, pp. 7–20. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Keydana, Goets and Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Definite referential null objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2): 116–28.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 23–53. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 131: 11–25.Google Scholar
Klimov, Georgij A. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo strija. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Heine, Bernd. 2008. On the explanatory value of grammaticalization. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, pp. 215–30. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 2000. Remarks on (uni)directionality. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, pp. 215–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1994. Suffix copying and related phenomena: A prototype approach. Linguistics 32: 1095–108.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1995. The function of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages. In Noonan, M. and Downing, P. (eds.), Word order in discourse, pp. 355–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1997. Omission of the direct object in Classical Latin. Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 239–57.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. On the directionality of grammaticalization. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51(4): 355–65.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2005. Does a theory of language change need unidirectionality? Logos and Language 6(2): 9–17.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2008. Possessive constructions in Anatolian, Hurrian, Urartean, and Armenian as evidence for language contact. In Collins, B. J., Bachvarova, M. R. and Rutherford, I. C. (eds.), Anatolian interfaces, pp. 147–55. Oxford: Oxbow Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, pp. 212–29. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45(2): 435–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2012. Basic valency orientation in Hittite. Studies in Language 36(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming a. From non-canonical to canonical agreement. To appear in a forthcoming Festschrift.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming b. The mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction. Submitted.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1995. Diachronically stable structural features. In Andersen, Henning (ed.), Historical linguistics 1993: Papers from the Eleventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics, pp. 337–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph, Brian and Janda, Richard (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, pp. 215–30. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2010. Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies. In Stathi, Ekaterini, Gehweiler, Elke and König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, pp. 123–50. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Robert. 2004. Towards a typology of nonconfigurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 359–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisani, Vittore. 1971. Glottologia indoeuropea. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally and Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11: 451–514.Google Scholar
Robbins, Janelle. 1998. The historical development of the English prepositions to and for. Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcom. 2001. Contact-induced change in Oceanic Languages in north-west Melanesia. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, pp. 134–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shields, Kenneth. 2011. Linguistic typology and historical linguistics. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, pp. 551–67. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanini, Ruggero. 1969. Il genitivo aggettivale nelle lingue anatoliche. Athenaeum N. S. 47: 290–302.Google Scholar
Stewart, John M. 1989. Kwa. In Bendor-Samuel, John (ed.), The Niger-Congo languages. Lanham, MD and London: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2003. Contact as a source of language change. In Joseph, Brian and Janda, Richard (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, pp. 687–712. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1932. Les groupes nominaux en arménien et géorgien anciens. Norsk Tidsskrift for Spragvidenskap 5: 57–81.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.Google Scholar
Wartburg, Walther. 1958. Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Basel: Zbinden.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, pp. 44–63. Oxford University Press, 44–63.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1963. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren and Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2008. Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In Stolz, Thomas, Bakker, Dik and Palomo, Rosa Salas (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on romancisation processes, pp. 89–121. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Gernot. 1995. Suffixaufnahme in Hurrian and Urartean. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Double case, pp. 113–35. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×