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.

Apart from common cases of differential argument marking, referential hierarchies affect argument marking in two ways: (a) through hierarchical marking, where markers compete for a slot and the competition is resolved by a hierarchy, and (b) through co-argument sensitivity, where the marking of one argument depends on the properties of its co-argument. Here we show that while co-argument sensitivity cannot be analyzed in terms of hierarchical marking, hierarchical marking can be analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity. Once hierarchical effects on marking are analyzed in terms of co-argument sensitivity, it becomes possible to examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in exactly the same way as one can examine alignment patterns relative to referential categories in cases of differential argument marking and indeed any other condition on alignment (such as tense or clause type). As a result, instances of hierarchical marking of any kind turn out not to present a special case in the typology of alignment, and there is no need for positing an additional non-basic alignment type such as "hierarchical alignment". While hierarchies are not needed for descriptive and comparative purposes, we also cast doubt on their relevance in diachrony: examining two families for which hierarchical agreement has been postulated, Algonquian and Kiranti, we find only

Two principles shaping agreement paradigms have been implicitly assumed to constitute diachronic universals: (i) ergativity is assumed to be more likely to develop or be maintained in third than in non-third person; (ii) zeros are assumed to develop and be preserved more commonly in third than in non-third person. Estimating probabilities of diachronic change in a worldwide database and controling for areal diffusion effects, we find no evidence for (i). Principle (ii) receives no support either when examining how paradigms develop as systems, but we observe a weak cross-paradigm effect which is likely to be caused by frequency patterns during grammaticalization.

No abstract

No abstract