2. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment

Abstract

If a language develops differential subject or differential object marking by case or adpositions, this is widely hypothesized to result from a universal effect of referential scales. The effect can be understood as a universal correlation between the odds of overt case marking and scale ranks (a negative correlation for subjects, a positive one for objects), or as an implicational universal proposing that, if a language has a split in case marking, this split fits a universal scale. We test both claims with various versions of scale definitions by statistically estimating diachronic biases towards correlations or scale-fitting in an areally stratified sample of over 460 case systems worldwide. For most scales tested, results suggest evidence against universal preferences towards universal scale effects under either a correlational or an implicational model. For binary part-of-speech and information-structure distinction and object marking, the evidence for universal effects is inconclusive. What we do find, by contrast, is highly significant area effects: case-marking splits tend to have developed and spread in Eurasia and the New-Guinea/Australia ('Sahul') macro-areas. This suggests that any replication of scale effects across language families is a side-effect of areal diffusion rather than of universal principles in grammar or cognition.

Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement

“…Our results are furthermore consistent with recent findings that referential hierarchies are much less important for argument coding in general (through agreement or case) than previously assumed (see Filimonova 2005;Bickel 2008;Phillipps 2013;Fauconnier and Verstraete 2014;Bickel et al 2015b). …”

“…Alignment statements, by contrast, are well-established notions for comparative purposes, they make it possible to compare proportions (or degrees) of, say, "ergativity" along with the effects of specific referential categories (for some recent applications, see Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al 2008;Bickel and Nichols 2009;Bickel et al 2013Bickel et al , 2015aBickel et al , 2015bBickel et al , 2015c.…”

Introduction

“…The motivations for such commonalities are ultimately to be sought in the diachronic pathways which give rise to Differential Object Marking systems (Sinnemäki this issue ;Iemmolo 2011;Bickel et al 2012).…”

Untitled

“…В типологических исследованиях [Bickel, WitzlackMakarevich 2008] и [Bickel et al 2015], проведенных на основе выборок в 352 и 462 языка соответственно, авторы ставят под сомнение универсальность принципов организации шкал и их влияния на маркирование аргументов и приходят к выводу, что исследование дифференцированного маркирования должно вклю-чать в рассмотрение фактор языковых контактов, который, по их мнению, и определяет тип «расщепления» падежного кодирования в конкретных языках.…”