Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T15:44:13.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstructing the Evolution of Indo-European Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Gerd Carling  and
Chundra Cathcart
Gerd Carling*
Affiliation:
Lund University
Chundra Cathcart*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
*
[gerd.carling@ling.lu.se], [chundra.cathcart@uzh.ch]
[gerd.carling@ling.lu.se], [chundra.cathcart@uzh.ch]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses phylogenetic methods adopted from computational biology in order to reconstruct features of Proto-Indo-European morphosyntax. We estimate the probability of the presence of typological features in Proto-Indo-European on the assumption that these features change according to a stochastic process governed by evolutionary transition rates between them. We compare these probabilities to previous reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European morphosyntax, which use either the comparative-historical method or implicational typology. We find that our reconstruction yields strong support for a canonical model (synthetic, nominative-accusative, head-final) of the protolanguage and low support for any alternative model. Observing the evolutionary dynamics of features in our data set, we conclude that morphological features have slower rates of change, whereas syntactic traits change faster. Additionally, more frequent, unmarked traits in grammatical hierarchies have slower change rates when compared to less frequent, marked ones, which indicates that universal patterns of economy and frequency impact language change within the family

Keywords

Indo-European linguisticshistorical linguisticsphylogenetic linguisticstypologysyntactic reconstruction

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 97 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 561 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 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

Footnotes

*

Equal author contribution. The work was supported by the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation, grants MAW 2012.0095 and MAW 2017.0050, both awarded to Gerd Carling. We thank audiences at the 50th annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, the 24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, and the linguistics seminars at Lund, Zurich, and Göttingen Universities for valuable remarks, along with three anonymous referees, Simon Greenhill, and the Language editors. We also thank Filip Larsson, Niklas Erben Johansson, Erich Round, Sandra Cronhamn, and Arthur Holmer for helpful comments on data, study design, and results, and Johan Frid for preparing trial versions of some of the graphs. Special thanks are due to Gerhard Jäger for help on various technical matters as well as for providing the proof included in the online supplementary material.

References

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–83. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024109008573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, and Brown, Dunstan. 2013. Syncretism in verbal person/number marking. In Dryer & Haspelmath. Online: https://wals.info/chapter/29.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2011. The interplay between universal grammar, universals, and lineage specificity. Linguistic Typology 15. 473–82. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 1986. Untersuchungen zur vergleichenden Grammatik der germanischen Sprachen, Bd. 1: Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbalsystems. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jóhanna, Barđdal. 2014. Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn, 343–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jóhanna, Barđdal, and Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2009. The origin of the oblique subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. Grammatical change in Indo-European languages: Papers presented at the workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007, ed. by Bubenik, Vit, Hewson, John, and Rose, Sarah, 179–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 1995. The emergence and development of SVO patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195091038.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110825992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 2007. The definite article in Indo-European: Emergence of a new grammatical category? Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence, ed. by Stark, Elisabeth, Leiss, Elisabeth, and Abraham, Werner, 103–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Jeremy M., and O'Meara, Brian C.. 2014. Hidden Markov models for studying the evolution of binary morphological characters. Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology: Concepts and practice, ed. by László, Zsolt Garamszegi, 395–408. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_16.10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., and Niyogi, Partha. 1996. Learning from triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 605–22. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178954.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. Case and grammatical relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, ed. by Corbett, Greville G. and Noonan, Michael, 191–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.81.09ontCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Statistical modeling of language universals. Linguistic Typology 15. 401–13. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.027.10.1515/lity.2011.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2002. Autotypologizing databases and their use in fieldwork. International Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics, Las Palmas at LREC 2002, 26–27 May 2002. Online: https://www.mpi.nl/world/lrec/2002/papers/lrec-pap-20-BickelNichols.pdf.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, Damián E., Moran, Steven, Moisik, Scott R., Widmer, Paul, Dediu, Dan; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2019. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363(6432):eaav3218. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav3218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasi, Damián E., Moran, Steven, Moisik, Scott R., Widmer, Paul, Dediu, Dan; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2020. Languages, evolution and statistics: Human sound systems were shaped by changes in bite configuration: Response to Tarasov & Uyeda (2020). bioRxiv 2020. 02. 27.965400 (preprint). DOI: 10.1101/2020.02.27.965400.Google Scholar
Bollback, Jonathan P. 2006. SIMMAP: Stochastic character mapping of discrete traits on phylogenies. BMC Bioinformatics 7:88. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-88.10.1186/1471-2105-7-88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache. Frankfurt am Main: Andreas.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Malchukov, Andrej L.; and Richards, Marc D. (eds.) 2015. Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110344134.10.1515/9783110344134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco R., Lemey, Philippe, Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon J., Alekseyenko, Alexander V., Drummond, Alexei J., Gray, Russell D., Suchard, Marc A.; and Atkinson, Quentin D.. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337(6097). 957–60. DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669.10.1126/science.1219669CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouckaert, Remco R., and Robbeets, Martine. 2017. Pseudo Dollo models for the evolution of binary characters along a tree. bioRxiv 207571 (preprint). DOI: 10.1101/207571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, George E. P. 1980. Sampling and Bayes' inference in scientific modelling and robustness. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General) 143. 383–430. DOI: 10.2307/2982063.10.2307/2982063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl, and Delbrück, Berthold. 1893. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen, Bd. 3: Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Teil 1. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl, and Delbrück, Berthold. 1897. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen, Bd. 4: Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Teil 2. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl, and Delbrück, Berthold. 1900. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: Kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umbrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutschen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen, Bd. 5: Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, Teil 3. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Calude, Andreea S., and Verkerk, Annemarie. 2016. The typology and diachrony of higher numerals in Indo-European: A phylogenetic comparative study. Journal of Language Evolution 1. 91–108. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzw003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, and Harris, Alice C.. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 38. 599–618. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226702001706.CrossRefGoogle 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
Carling, Gerd (ed.) 2019. The Mouton atlas of languages and cultures, vol. 1: Europe and West, Central and South Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110367416.10.1515/9783110367416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd, Larsson, Filip, Cathcart, Chundra A., Johansson, Niklas, Holmer, Arthur, Round, Erich; and Verhoeven, Rob. 2018. Diachronic Atlas of Comparative Linguistics (DiACL)—A database for ancient language typology. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0205313. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205313.10.1371/journal.pone.0205313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cathcart, Chundra A., Carling, Gerd, Larsson, Filip, Johansson, Niklas; and Round, Erich. 2018. Areal pressure in grammatical evolution: An Indo-European case study. Diachronica 35. 1–34. DOI: 10.1075/dia.16035.cat.Google Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra A., Hölzl, Andreas, Jäger, Gerhard, Widmer, Paul; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2020. Numeral classifiers and number marking in Indo-Iranian: A phylogenetic approach. Language Dynamics and Change 11(2). 273–325. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-bja10013.10.1163/22105832-bja10013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Will, Cathcart, Chundra A., Hall, David; and Garrett, Andrew. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91. 194–244. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840579.Google Scholar
Croft, William, Bhattacharya, Tanmoy, Kleinschmidt, Dave, Smith, D. Eric; and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2011. Greenbergian universals, diachrony, and statistical analyses. Linguistic Typology 15. 433–53. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.029.10.1515/lity.2011.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2011. Understanding transition probabilities. Linguistic Typology 15. 415–31. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dediu, Dan. 2010. A Bayesian phylogenetic approach to estimating the stability of linguistic features and the genetic biasing of tone. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 278. 474–79. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1595.Google ScholarPubMed
Dediu, Dan, and Cysouw, Michael. 2013. Some structural aspects of language are more stable than others: A comparison of seven methods. PLoS ONE 8(1):e55009. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055009.10.1371/journal.pone.0055009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dediu, Dan, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2012. Abstract profiles of structural stability point to universal tendencies, family-specific factors, and ancient connections between languages. PLoS ONE 7(9):e45198. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045198.10.1371/journal.pone.0045198CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delbrück, Berthold. 2010 [1897]. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511706578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2011. Stability of word order: Even simple questions need careful answers. Linguistic Typology 15. 381–91. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.025.10.1515/lity.2011.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81–138. DOI: 10.2307/416370.10.1353/lan.1992.0028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011. The evidence for word order correlations. Linguistic Typology 15. 335–80. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.024.10.1515/lity.2011.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: https://wals.info/.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Dewey, Tonya Kim, Arnett, Carlee, Eythórsson, Thórhallur; and Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2017. Dative sickness: A phylogenetic analysis of argument structure evolution in Germanic. Language 93.e1-e22. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0012.10.1353/lan.2017.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon J., Levinson, Stephen C.; and Gray, Russell D.. 2011. Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 473. 79–82. DOI: 10.1038/nature09923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, Joseph. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17. 368–76. DOI: 10.1007/BF01734359.10.1007/BF01734359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, Joseph. 2004. Inferring phytogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella, and Goldbach, Maria (eds.) 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1975. Proto-Indo-European syntax: The order of meaningful elements. Butte, MT: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič, and Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul'tury [Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical typological analysis of a protolanguage and a protoculture]. Tbilisi: Izd. Tbilisskogo Univ.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz Valerianovič, and Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. Trans. by Nichols, Johanna. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110815030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Universals of language: Report of a conference held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13–15, 1961. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Green berg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Universals of human language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 2005. Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Mark, and Kissock, Madelyn. 2015. Syntactic reconstruction: The correspondence problem revisited. Paper presented at the 17th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference (DIGS 17), Reykjavik, May 31. Online: http://modlang-phonetica.concordia.ca/Iceland-Talk.pdf.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In Ferraresi & Goldbach, 73–95.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511620553.10.1017/CBO9780511620553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226705003683.10.1017/S0022226705003683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–87. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0021.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al., 45–58. DOI: 10.1515/9783110344134.45.10.1515/9783110344134.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2018. Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral. Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, ed. by Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd, 97–115. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0006.10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Tracy A., Holder, Mark T.; and Huelsenbeck, John. 2012. A Dirichlet process prior for estimating lineage-specific substitution rates. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29. 939–55. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msr255.10.1093/molbev/msr255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewson, John, and Bubenik, Vit. 1997. Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages: Theory, typology, diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirt, Hermann Alfred. 1934. Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil 6. Syntax 1: Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann Alfred. 1937. Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil 7. Syntax 2: Die Lehre vom einfachen und zusammengesetzten Satz. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2013. Proto-Indo-European verb-finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3. 49–76. DOI: 10.1075/jhl.3.1.04hoc.10.1075/jhl.3.1.04hocCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich, and Joseph, Brian D.. 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, John P., Nielsen, Rasmus; and Bollback, Jonathan P.. 2003. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Systematic Biology 52. 131–58. DOI: 10.1080/10635150390192780.10.1080/10635150390192780CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, Gerhard. 2019. Computational historical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 45. 151–82. DOI: 10.1515/tl-2019-0011.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249053.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249053.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josephson, Folke, and Söhrman, Ingmar (eds.) 2008. Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimov, Georgij Andreevich. 1974. On the character of languages of active typology. Linguistics 12. 11–76. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1974.12.131.11.10.1515/ling.1974.12.131.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahe, Hans, Schmeja, Hans; and Meid, Wolfgang. 1972. Grundzüge der vergleichenden Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Innsbruck: Institut für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang, and Thomas, Werner. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Bd. 1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Krisch, Thomas. 1990. Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht. Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute, ed. by Eichner, Heiner and Rix, Helmut, 64–81. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid, and Lavidas, Nikolaos (eds.) 2015. Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam, and Roberts, Ian G. (eds.) 2017. The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107279070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1973. A structural principle of language and its implications. Language 49. 47–66. DOI: 10.2307/412102.10.2307/412102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 2002. Pre-Indo-European. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, and III., Hal Daumé 2011. Computational methods are invaluable for typology, but the models must match the questions. Linguistic Typology 15. 393–99. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.026.10.1515/lity.2011.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liggett, Thomas M. 2010. Continuous time Markov processes: An introduction. (Graduate studies in mathematics 113.) Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.10.1090/gsm/113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 2002. Myths and the prehistory of grammars. Journal of Linguistics 38. 113–36. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226701001268.10.1017/S0022226701001268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe, Guardiano, Cristina, Silvestri, Giuseppina, Boattini, Alessio; and Ceolin, Andrea. 2013. Toward a syntactic phylogeny of modern Indo-European languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3. 122–52. DOI: 10.1075/jhl.3.1.07lon.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe, and Roberts, Ian. 2011. Non-arguments about non-universals. Linguistic Typology 15. 483–95. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.032.10.1515/lity.2011.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 45. 435–64. DOI: 10.1515/flin.2011.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mal'čukov, Andrej. 2015. Towards a typology of split ergativity: A TAM-hierarchy for alignment splits. In Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al., 275–96. DOI: 10.1515/9783110344134.275.10.1515/9783110344134.275.10.1515/9783110344134.275.10.1515/9783110344134.275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, James P., and Adams, Douglas Q.. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1962. A functional view of language: Being the Waynflete lectures delivered in the College of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford 1961. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Matasović, Ranko. 2004. Gender in Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Maurits, Luke, and Griffiths, Thomas L.. 2014. Tracing the roots of syntax with Bayesian phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111. 13576–81. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319042111.10.1073/pnas.1319042111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meid, Wolfgang. 1975. Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen. Flexion und Wortbildung, ed. by Rix, Helmut, 204–19. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael, Fritz, Matthias; and Mayrhofer, Manfred. 2010. Indoger-manische Sprachwissenschaft. 9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110251449.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1948. Linguistique historique et linguistique générate. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Melchert, Craig. 2000. Tocharian plurals in -nt and related phenomena. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 9. 53–75.Google Scholar
Murawaki, Yugo. 2018. Analyzing correlated evolution of multiple features using latent representations. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 4371–82. DOI: 10.18653/v1/D18-1468.10.18653/v1/D18-1468.10.18653/v1/D18-1468.10.18653/v1/D18-1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, Geoff K., and Gray, Russell D.. 2006. Quantifying uncertainty in a stochastic Dollo model of vocabulary evolution. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, ed. by Forster, Peter and Renfrew, Colin, 161–71. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1993. Ergativity and linguistic geography. Australian Journal of Linguistics 13. 39–89. DOI: 10.1080/07268609308599489.10.1080/07268609308599489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1995. Diachronically stable structural features. Historical linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, ed. by Andersen, Henning, 337–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1998. The Eurasian spread zone and the Indo-European dispersal. Archaeology and language II: Archaeological data and linguistic hypotheses, ed. by Blench, Roger and Spriggs, Matthew, 220–66. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in languages. The Oxford handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405166201.ch5.10.1002/9780470756393.ch5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Rasmus. 2002. Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 51. 729–39. DOI: 10.1080/10635150290102393.10.1080/10635150290102393CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, Mark, Atkinson, Quentin D.; and Meade, Andrew. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449. 717–20. DOI: 10.1038/nature06176.10.1038/nature06176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagel, Mark, and Meade, Andrew. 2006. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. The American Naturalist 167. 808–25. DOI: 10.1086/503444.10.1086/503444CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pires, Acrisio, and Thomason, Sarah G.. 2008. How much syntactic reconstruction is possible? In Ferraresi & Goldbach, 27–72.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 2011. Call for debate re word-order universals. Linguistic Typology 15. 333–34. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.023.10.1515/lity.2011.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pooth, Roland, Kerkhof, Peter Alexander, Kulikov, Leonid; and Barđdal, Jóhanna. 2018. The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, ergative, or semantic alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen 124. 245–64. DOI: 10.1515/if-2019-0009.Google Scholar
Rix, Helmut, and Kümmel, Martin. 2001. LIV: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlerath, Bernfried. 1981. Ist ein Raum/Zeit-Modell für eine rekonstruierte Sprache möglich? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95. 175–202. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40849462.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1979. Reconstructing active and ergative stages of Pre-Indo-European. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 333–45. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1982. Typusrelevanter Sprachwandel flektierend zu agglutinierend und seine Korrelationen. Études Finno-Ougriennes 15. 335–46.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna (ed.) 1998. Constituent order in the languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110812206.10.1515/9783110812206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Sara Graça da, and Tehrani, Jamshid J.. 2016. Comparative phylogenetic analyses uncover the ancient roots of Indo-European folktales. Royal Society Open Science 3:150645. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150645.10.1098/rsos.150645CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1962. The Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Language 38. 105–10. DOI: 10.2307/410871.10.2307/410871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1989. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Tichy, Eva. 1993. Kollektiva, Genus femininum und relative Chronologie im Indogerma-nischen. Historische Sprachforschung/Historical Linguistics 106. 1–19. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40849074.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58. 832–49. DOI: 10.2307/413959.10.2307/413959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuffley, Chris, and Steel, Mike. 1998. Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. Mathematical Biosciences 147. 63–91. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-5564(97)00081-3.10.1016/S0025-5564(97)00081-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uhlenbeck, C. Cornelis. 1901. Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 12. 170–71.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A. 1936. L'ergatif indo-européen. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2015. Historical syntax: Problems, materials, methods, hypotheses. Perspectives on historical syntax, ed. by Viti, Carlotta, 3–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1920. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Basel: in Kommissionsvlg von E. Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30. 95–122. DOI: 10.1075/dia.30.1.04wal.10.1075/dia.30.1.04walCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2019. The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1):52. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.888.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudoproblems. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on diachronic syntax) 12(2). 305–26.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren. 2014. Diachronic stability and typology. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn, 212–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Widmer, Manuel, Auderset, Sandra, Nichols, Johanna, Widmer, Paul; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2017. NP recursion over time: Evidence from Indo-European. Language 93. 799–826. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0058.10.1353/lan.2017.0058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1984. Reconstructional comparative linguistics and the reconstruction of undocumented stages in the development of languages and language families. Historical syntax, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 613–25. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110824032.613.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, and Seržant, Ilja A.. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. Diachrony of differential argument marking, ed. by Seržant, Ilja A. and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1219168.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2000. Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change 12. 231–50. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394500123014.10.1017/S0954394500123014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Ziheng. 2014. Molecular evolution: A statistical approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602605.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Carling and Cathcart supplementary material

Carling and Cathcart supplementary material
Download Carling and Cathcart supplementary material(File)
File 4.5 MB