Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T04:36:53.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Cumulative to Separative Exponence in Inflection: Reversing the Morphological Cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Iván Igartua
Iván Igartua*
Affiliation:
University of the Basque Country
*
Slavic Philology/Institute of Sciences of Antiquity, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, [ivan.igartua@ehu.es]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological strategies for inflectional exponence have traditionally been associated with different stages in the evolution of languages. Moreover, the so-called MORPHOLOGICAL CYCLE (or the TYPOLOGICAL CYCLE inmorphology) is claimed to involve a unidirectional sequence of changes that leads from isolation to agglutination (separative exponence in inflection) and subsequently to fusion (cumulative exponence). But this rigid schema happens to exclude a wealth of diachronic developments that are solidly attested in the history of various languages: the shift from cumulative toward separative exponence perhaps constitutes the strongest challenge to the unidirectionality hypothesis implied by the classic typological cycle. Here I survey the data illustrating agglutinative developments inside fusional systems, a task that first requires a canonical definition of morphological techniques. Then the mechanisms underlying this significant typological change are classified and analyzed in detail. The final part of the article is devoted to discussing the possible causes behind the reversal of the morphological cycle. The diachronic evidence at our disposal points to a rather clear differentiation between the language-internal causes that seem to determine the shift from agglutinative to fusional structures and the language-external causes (contact influence of a particular kind) that commonly lie behind the reverse morphological change.

Keywords

morphological cyclecumulative and separative exponencefusionagglutinationdiachronic typologyunidirectionalitycontact-induced change

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , September 2015, pp. 676 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abaev, Vasilij I. 1964. A grammatical sketch of Ossetic (composite English version of the Russian originals of 1952 and 1959). Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 1–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrazas, Vitautas (ed.) 1997. Lithuanian grammar: Lietuvip kalbos gramatika. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian language/Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1969. The peripheral plural desinences in East Slavic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 12. 19–32.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2008. Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, ed. by Eythórsson, Thórhallur, 11–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2001. On some issues in morphological exponence. Yearbook of Morphology 2000. 1–17.Google Scholar
Appel, Karol. 1881. Něskokko slovъ o novějšemъ psixologiceskomъ napravlenii jazykoz- nanija. Russkijfilologičeskij věstníkъ 6. 3. 93–142.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1998. Isomorphism and monotonicity: Or the disease model of morphology. Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. by Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K., and Farrell, Patrick M., 411–18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Austerlitz, Robert. 1970. Agglutination in Northern Eurasia in perspective. Studies in general and oriental studies presented to Shirô Hattori on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. by Jakobson, Roman and Kawamoto, Shigeo, 1–5. Tokyo: TEC Company.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax- morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 1994. Michif, the Cree-French mixed language of the Métis buffalo hunters in Canada. In Bakker & Mous, 13–33.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter, and Mous, Maarten (eds.) 1994. Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2010. Evolution of case in Ossetic. Iran and the Caucasus 14. 287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Belhare. The Sino-Tibetan languages, ed. by Thurgood, Graham and LaPolla, Randy J., 546–70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 2nd edn., ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Exponence of selected inflectional formatives. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin, Ch. 21. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/21.Google Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland. 1982. Zur Entwicklung der ossetischen Deklination. Indogermanische Forschungen 87. 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2005. Word-based declensions in Estonian. Yearbook of Morphology 2005. 1–25.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2008. Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 4. 241–67.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Boeder, Winfried. 2005. The South Caucasian languages. Lingua 115. 5–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogoljubov, Mixail N. 1966. Jagnobskij jazyk. Indoevropejskie jazyki (Jazyki narodov SSSR 1), ed. by Vinogradov, Vladimir V., 342–61. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1994. Against split morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 27–50.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. Yearbook of Morphology 1995. 1–16.Google Scholar
Borkovskij, Viktor I., and Kuznecov, Petr S.. 1963. Istoričeskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Chumakina, Marina. 2013. An introduction to canonical typology. Canonical morphology and syntax, ed. by Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G., 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1997. Semantic aspects of morphological typology. Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón, ed. by Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 25–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora. 2004. Approaches to morphological typology. Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, 1221–31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carling, Gerd. 2012. Development of form and function in a case system with layers: Tocharian and Romani compared. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 13. 57–76.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1984. Outlines of a constraint in syncretism. Folia Linguistica 18. 7385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew, and Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1988. A processing constraint on inflectional homonymy. Linguistics 26. 601–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine, and Léglise, Isabelle. 2012. A multi-model approach to contact-induced language change. Dynamics of contact-induced language change, ed. by Chamoreau, Claudine and Léglise, Isabelle, 1–15. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Johnny. 2008. The Ossetic case system revisited. Evidence and counter-evidence: Essays in honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1: Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics, ed. by Lubotsky, Alexander, Schaeken, Jos, and Wiedenhof, Jeroen, 87–105. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian sprachbund. From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, ed. by Muysken, Pieter, 25–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978/1979. On the morphological typology of Balto-Finnic: A reassessment. Études Finno-Ougriennes 15. 91–99. [Published in 1982.].Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. General features of the Uralic languages. The Uralic languages: Description, history and foreign influences (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8:1), ed. by Sinor, Denis, 451–77. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Inflectional morphology and language contact, with special reference to mixed languages. Language contact and contact languages (Hamburg studies on multilingualism 7), ed. by Siemund, Peter and Kintana, Noemi, 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. Linguistic diversity and language theories, ed. by Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David S., 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83. 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2011. Higher order exceptionality in inflectional morphology. Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, ed. by Simon, Horst J. and Weise, Heike, 107–26. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard M. 1910. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Journal of Hellenic Studies 30. 109.32, 267-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A study of the dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa with grammars, texts, translations, and glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DÉcsy, Gyula. 1990. The Uralic protolanguage: A comprehensive reconstruction. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21. 151–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia, and Stampe, David. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2004. 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987. Word formation as part of natural morphology. Leitmotifs in natural morphology, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald, and Wurzel, Wolfgang U., 99–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. (London Oriental and African language library 14.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Durnovo, Nikolaj N. 2000 [1924]. Očerk istorii russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna V. 2007. Lingvističeskie kontakty rannix tjurkov. Moscow: Vostočnaja literatura.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 2003. Kiranti languages: An overview. The Sino-Tibetan languages, ed. by Thurgood, Graham and LaPolla, Randy J., 505–17. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin. 2009. Linguistic strategies and markedness in Estonian morphology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 62. 29–48.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2005. Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality: Evidence from Hup. Studies in Language 29. 617–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erhart, Adolf. 1993. Die indogermanische nominal Flexion und ihre Genese. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universitāt Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Fāhnrich, Heinz. 1991. Old Georgian. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 1: The Kartvelian languages, ed. by Harris, Alice C., 129–217. Delmar: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Fredric W. 2002. Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2008. On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32. 336–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2012. Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and agglutination. In Johanson & Robbeets, 71–97.Google Scholar
Golovko, Evgenij V. 1994. Copper Island Aleut. In Bakker & Mous, 113–21.Google Scholar
Golovko, Evgenij V. 1996. A case of nongenetic development in the Arctic area: The contribution of Aleut and Russian to the formation of Copper Island Aleut. Language contact in the Arctic: Northern pidgins and contact languages, ed. by Jahr, Ernst Håkon and Broch, Ingvild, 63–77. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golovko, Evgenij V. 1997. Mednovskix aleutov jazyk. Jazyki mira: Paleoaziatskie jazyki, ed. by Volodin, A. P., 117–25. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Golovko, Evgenij v., and Vakhtin, Nikolaj B.. 1990. Aleut in contact: The CIA enigma. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22. 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, G. C., and Tamuli, Jyotiprakash. 2003. Asamiya. The Indo-Aryan languages, ed. by Cardona, George and Jain, Dhanesh, 429–84. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1990 [1963]. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. On language, ed. by Denning, Keith and Kemmer, Suzanne, 40–70. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grjunberg, Aleksandr L., and Steblin-Kamenskij, Ivan Μ.. 1976. Jazyki vostočnogo Gindukuša: Vaxanskij jazyk. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2000. Typological characteristics of the Finnic languages: A reappraisal. Facing Finnic: Some challenges to historical and contact linguistics, ed. by Laakso, Johanna, 31–63. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, suomalais-ugrilainen laitos.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 244.) Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2007. Morphological change and the influence of language contacts in Estonian. Beitrāge zur Morphologie: Germanisch, Baltisch, Ostseefinnisch, ed. by Fix, Hans, 403–32. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1990. Do the classical morphological types have clear-cut limits? Contemporary morphology, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rennison, John R., 297–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamp, Eric C. 1965. The Albanian dialect of Mandres. Die Sprache 11. 137–54.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1991. Overview on the history of the Kartvelian languages. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 1: The Kartvelian languages, ed. by Harris, Alice C., 7–83. Delmar: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Explaining exuberant agreement. Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, ed. by Eythórsson, Thórhallur, 265–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2009. Exuberant exponence in Batsbi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22. 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. An empirical test of the agglutination hypothesis. Universals of language today (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 76), ed. by Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta, 13–29. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–87.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 16. 529–72.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Gerd, and Menzel, Thomas. 2002. Marker productivity, structural preferences and frequency: Observations about morphological change in Slavonic languages. Indogermanische Forschungen 107. 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, B. George. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. (London Oriental and African language library 2.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Eugen. 2013. Sprachkontakt und die Flexionsmorphologie bei der Ausbreitung des Indogermanischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 118. 169–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich, and Joseph, Brian D.. 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hodge, Carleton T. 1970. The linguistic cycle. Language Sciences 13. 1–7.Google Scholar
Honti, László. 1988. Die ob-ugrischen Sprachen. The Uralic languages: Description, history and foreign influences (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8:1), ed. by Sinor, Denis, 147–96. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 2003. Case and number inflection of noun phrases. A grammar of Basque, ed. by José, Ignacio Hualde and Ortiz, Jon de Urbina, , 171–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2004. How to become a ‘Kwa’ verb. Journal of West African Languages 30. 69–88.Google Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2005. Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2007/2008. Ciclos invertidos: En torno a la direccionalidad del cambio tipológico. Die Sprache 47. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2012. Para una tipología del reanálisis morfológico. Revista Española de Lingüística 42. 109–44.Google Scholar
Iordanidi, Sofija i., and Krys‘ko, Vadim B.. 2000. Istoričeskaja grammatika drevneruss-kogo jazyka, I: Množestvennoe čislo imennogo sklonenija. Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Ivanova, TatJana A. 1957. Iz istorii imennogo sklonenija (k voprosu o proisxoždenii imenitelnogo-vinitelnogo padeža množestvennogo čisla mužskogo roda na -á v russ-komjazyke). Voprosyjazykoznanija 6. 50–58.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1992. Pseudo-agglutinativity in Modern Greek verb-inflection and ‘elsewhere’. Chicago Linguistic Society 28. 251–66.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2000. Reconstructing Pre-Proto-Uralic typology spanning the millennia of linguistic evolution. Congressus nonus international fenno-ugristarum, pars 1: Orationes plenariae & orationes publicae, ed. by Nurk, Anu, Palo, Triinu, and Seilenthal, Tõnu, 59–76. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2004. Animacy, definiteness, and case in Cappadocian and other Asia Minor Greek dialects. Journal of Greek Linguistics 5. 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2009a. Greek-Turkish language contact in Asia Minor. Études helléniques/Hellenic Studies 17. 37–54.Google Scholar
Janse, Mark. 2009b. Watkins's law and the development of agglutinative inflections in Asia Minor Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9. 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2006. On the roles of Turkic in the Caucasus area. Linguistic areas: Convergence in historical and typological perspective, ed. by Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April, and Vincent, Nigel, 160–81. Hampshire: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars, and Robbeets, Martine (eds.) 2012. Copies versus cognates in bound morphology. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Johnston, Jason. 1997. Systematic homonymy and the structure of morphological categories: Some lessons from paradigm geometry. Sydney: University of Sydney dissertation.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2006. How accommodating of change is grammaticalization? The case of ‘lateral shifts’. Logos and Language: Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory 6. 1–7.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2009. Greek dialectal evidence for the role of the paradigm in inflectional change. Morphology 19. 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2013. Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. Studies in Language 37. 675–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, Heinrich F. J. 1930. Arische Forschungen. Yaghnōbī Studien, I: Die sprachgeo-graphische Gliederung des Yaghnōb-Tales. (Abhandlungen der philologisch-historische Klasse der sāchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 41.) Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Kadshaia, Otar. 2008. Mingrelisch. Kartwelischen Sprachen: Altgeorgisch, Neugeorgisch, Mingrelisch, Lasisch, Swanisch, ed. by Fāhnrich, Heinz, 183–245. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kakati, Banikanta. 1941. Assamese, its formation and development. Gauhati: Government of Assam.Google Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2009. The loss of grammatical gender in Cappadocian Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 107. 196–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karatsareas, Petros. 2011. A study of Cappadocian Greek nominal morphology from a diachronic and dialectological perspective. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Karst, Josef. 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartosia, Guram. 2008. Lasisch. Kartwelischen Sprachen: Altgeorgisch, Neugeorgisch, Mingrelisch, Lasisch, Swanisch, ed. by Fāhnrich, Heinz, 247–304. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1967. Russische historische Grammatik, II: Die Entwicklung des Formensystems. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared. 2007. Classical Armenian morphology. Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, ed. by Kaye, Alan S., 1051–86. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1995. The creation of morphological zeroes. Yearbook of Morphology 1994. 31–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1996 [1981]. Typological drift in the Finno-Ugrian languages with special reference to the case system. Typological and historical studies in language, ed. by Salminen, Tapani, 195–206. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1996 [1992]. Remarks on the structure and history of the Uralic case system. Typological and historical studies in language, ed. by Salminen, Tapani, 21934. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang, and Thomas, Werner. 1980. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band 1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 51. 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2000. Morphological simplification: More than erosion? Languages in contact (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 28), ed. by Gilbers, Dicky G., Nerbonne, John A., and Schaeken, Jos, 225–30. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change in verbal inflection. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2008. Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning, and language change. In Miestamo et al., 4–22.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26. 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20. 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1958. On earlier stages of Indo-European nominal inflection. Language 34. 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49. 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 2002. Pre-Indo-European. (Journal of Indo-European Studies monograph 41.) Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Lindström, Therese å. M. 2004. Grammaticalisation and explanation vs coalescence and secretion. Beitrāge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 14. 251–84.Google Scholar
Lubotsky, Alexander, and Starostin, Sergei. 2003. Turkic and Chinese loan words in Tocharian. Language in time and space: A festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday, ed. by Bauer, Brigitte M. L. and Pinault, Georges-Jean, 257–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maitz, Péter, and Németh, Attila. 2014. Language contact and morphosyntactic complexity: Evidence from German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26. 1. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1967. Multiple versus simple causation in linguistic change. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, vol. 2, 1228–46. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Manterola, Julen. 2009. Is Basque an agglutinative language? TINTA: Research Journal of Hispanic and Lusophone Studies 9. 88–108.Google Scholar
Marcantonio, Angela. 2002. The Uralic language family: Facts, myths and statistics. Oxford: The Philological Society.Google Scholar
Markov, Viktor M. 1992. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: Imennoe sklonenie. Izhevsk: Izdatelstvo Udmurtskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Martínez-Areta, Mikel. 2009. The category of number in Basque, I: Synchronic and historical aspects. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 110. 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1991. The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2011. Universals of structural borrowing. Linguistic universals and language variation, ed. by Siemund, Peter, 204–33. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1991. Morphology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, William K. 1956. The Latvian element in modern Livonian. Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Woltner, Margarete and Brāuer, Herbert, 30718. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1987. System-independent morphological naturalness. Leitmotifs in natural morphology, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald, and Wurzel, Wolfgang U., 25–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst. 1976. Evolution and the diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world's simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 6. 125–66.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2007. Language interrupted: Signs of non-native acquisition in standard language grammars. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2008. Why does a language undress? Strange cases in Indonesia. In Miestamo et al., 167–90.Google Scholar
Menovšcikov, Georgij A. 1964. K voprosu o pronicaemosti grammatičeskogo stroja jazyka. Voprosyjazykoznanija 5. 100–106.Google Scholar
Menovšcikov, Georgij A. 1969. O nekotoryx social'nyx aspektax èvoljucii jazyka. Voprosy social'noj lingvistiki, ed. by Desnickaja, Agnija V., Žirmunskij, Viktor M., and Kovtun, Ljudmila S., 110–34. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Michelena, Luis. 2011 [1950]. Sobre el estado actual de la cuestión del genitivo vasco en -en. Obras completas, VII: Fonética y fonología, morfosintaxis, dialectología, ed. by Lakarra, Joseba A. and Arzalluz, Iñigo Ruiz, 197–200. Donostia-San Sebastián/Vitoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco/Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.Google Scholar
Michelena, Luis. 2011 [1968]. Aspecto formal de la oposición nominativo/acusativo. Obras completas, I: Lingüística histórica, ed. by Lakarra, Joseba A. and Arzalluz, Iñigo Ruiz, 309–22. Donostia-San Sebastián/Vitoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco/Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo et al., 23–41.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemāki, Kaius; and Karlsson, Fred (eds.) 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing language typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 1994. Ma'a or Mbugu. In Bakker & Mous, 175–200.Google Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 2003. The making of a mixed language: The case of Ma'a/Mbugu. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson et al., 110–25.Google Scholar
Oranskij, Iosif M. 1977. Les langues iraniennes. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: An Even dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut). Journal of Language Contact—VARIA 2. 85110.Google Scholar
Payne, John. 1989. Pamir languages. In Schmitt 1989, 417–44.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David Μ. 1988. The split-morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. by Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 79–100. Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2001. Tocharo-Turcica. De Dunhuang à Istanbul: Hommage a James Russell Hamilton (Silk Road studies 5), ed. by Bazin, Louis and Zieme, Peter, 245–65. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2008. Chrestomathie tokharienne: Textes et grammaire. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1986. Paradigm size, morphological typology, and universal economy. Folia Linguistica 20. 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1999. Split morphology: How agglutination and flexion mix. Linguistic Typology 3. 279–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. Agglutination vs. flection. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 1, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, 669–78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pusztay, János. 1995. Diskussionsbeitrāge zur Grundsprachenforschung (Beispiel: das Protouralische). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2009. Morphology meets dialectology: Insights from Modern Greek dialects. Morphology 19. 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 2011. (Early) history of linguistic typology. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Song, Jae Jung, 9–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Renault, Richard. 1987. Genre grammatical et typologie linguistique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 82. 69–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don, and Eska, Joseph F.. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruge, Hans. 1984. Zur Entstehung der neugriechischen Mediopassivendungen. Folia Neohellenica 6. 132–43.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David; and Trudgill, Peter (eds.) 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santazilia, Ekaitz. 2013. Noun morphology. Basque and Proto-Basque: Language-internal and typological approaches to linguistic reconstruction, ed. by Martínez-Areta, Mikel, 223–81. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1992. Language decay and contact-induced change: Similarities and differences. Language death, ed. by Brenzinger, Matthias, 59–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šaxmatov, Aleksej A. 1957. Istoričeskaja morfologija russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Gosu-darstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izdatel'stvo Ministerstva prosveščenija RSFSR.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1969. Agglutination und Postposition im Tocharischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 25. 105–12.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1978/1979. Typusrelevanter Sprachwandel flektierend zur agglutinierend und seine Korrelationen. Etudes Finno-Ougriennes 15. 335–46. [Published in 1982.].Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) 1989. Compendium linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik der Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erlāuterungen. 2nd edn. Innsbruck: Innsbrücker Beitrāge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Sekerina, Irina. 1994. Copper Island (Mednyj) Aleut (CIA): A mixed language. Languages of the World 8. 14–31.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1982. The double system of nominal inflexion in Sogdian. Transactions of the Philological Society 80. 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1989. Sogdian. In Schmitt 1989, 173–92.Google Scholar
Skalička, Vladimir. 1979 [1951]. Das Erscheinungsbild der Sprachtypen. Typologische Studien, 21–58. Braunschweig: Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
Skalička, Vladimir. 1979 [1966]. Ein ‘typologisches Konstrukt’. Typologische Studien, 335–41. Braunschweig: Vieweg & Sohn.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, Prods O. 1989. Modern East Iranian languages. In Schmitt 1989, 370–83.Google Scholar
Sobolevskij, Aleksej I. 2004 [1907]. Lekcii po istorii russkogo jazyka. New edn.: Trudy po istorii russkogo jazyka, tom 1, 1–299. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.Google Scholar
Stempel, Reinhard. 2000. Zur Typologie der Pluralbildung des Nomens. 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, ed. by Ofitsch, Michaela and Zinko, Christian, 469–78. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1983. Genetic relationship and the case of Ma'a (Mbugu). Studies in African Linguistics 14. 195–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1997a. Mednyj Aleut. Contact languages: A wider perspective, ed. by Thomason, Sarah G., 449–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1997b. Ma'a (Mbugu). Contact languages: A wider perspective, ed. by Thomason, Sarah G., 469–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Contact-induced typological change. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 2, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, 1640–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah g., and Kaufman, Thomas. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Hanne-Ruth. 2012. Bengali. (London Oriental and African language library 18.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thordarson, Fridrik. 2009. Ossetic grammatical studies. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1996. Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1997. The history of Basque. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1998. The typological position of Basque: Then and now. Language Sciences 20. 313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. 1939. Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Acta Linguistica 1. 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2009. Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In Sampson et al., 98–109.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tunga, Sudhansu S. 1995. Bengali and other related dialects of Assam. Delhi: Mittal.Google Scholar
Vakhtin, Nikolaj B. 1985. Nekotorye osobennosti russko-aleutskogo dvujazyčija na Komandorskix ostrovax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5. 35–45.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
van Driem, George. 1993. Language change, conjugational morphology and the Sino-Tibetan Urheimat. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 26. 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenker, Wolfgang. 1967. Die Frage des finnougrischen Substrats in der russischen Sprache. (Uralic and Altaic series 62.) Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2003. Rise and development of the Estonian language. Estonian language (Linguistica Uralica supplementary series 1), ed. by Erelt, Mati, 130–230. Tallinn: Estonian Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1988a [1945]. Substrat et convergence dans l’évolution linguistique: Remarques sur l’évolution et la structure de l'arménien, du géorgien, de l'ossète et du turc. Linguistique caucasienne et arménienne (Studia Caucasologica 2), ed. by Hovd-haugen, Even and Thordarson, Fridrik, 177–92. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1988b [1947]. Le systéme de cas en géorgien ancien. Linguistique caucasienne et arménienne (Studia Caucasologica 2), ed. by Hovdhaugen, Even and Thordarson, Fridrik, 193–235. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 22. 2. 373–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worth, Dean S. 1983. Conditions on á-plural formation in Russian. Wiener slawistischer Almanach 11. 257–62.Google Scholar
Xazagerov, T. G. 1970. K voprosu o proisxoždenii i uslovijax rasprostranenija a-fleksii v imenitel'nom-vinitel'nom padežax množestvennogo čisla u suščestviternyx mužskogo roda I-go sklonenija. Filologičeskie Nauki 2. 136–40.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2002 [1967]. O pokazateljax množestvennogo čisla v russkom sklonenii. Russkoe imennoe sklonenie s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju, 545–49. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.Google Scholar
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1997. The history of the Lithuanian language. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar