Upload
builien
View
222
Download
7
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Modeling the complexity of grammatical gendersystems
Three case studies in synchronic and diachronic typology
Francesca Di Garbo
Stockholm University
21.06.2017
Outline
My approach to grammatical complexity
1 – Exploring grammatical complexity crosslinguistically: the caseof gender
2 – The evolutionary dynamics of gender systems’ complexity
3 – Correlates of restructuring in Bantu gender systems
References
My approach to grammatical complexity
How I define complexity: the number of parts in a system or thelength of its descriptionabsolute complexity (Dahl 2004, 2011; Miestamo2008).
How I investigate complexity crosslinguistically: based onfunctional domainslocal complexity (Miestamo 2006, 2008).
How I approach intra- and inter-language complexity variability:language variation and change can be influenced bysocial factors. Languages as complex adaptivesystems (Beckner et al. 2009; Maitz & Nemeth2014).
Dimensions of gender complexity(Audring 2014)
Complexity of values = number of genders.
Complexity of assignment = number and scope of genderassignment rules.
Complexity and amount of formal marking = number of genderagreement targets, frequency of gender marking indiscourse.
The study: aim, method, data(Di Garbo 2016)
⇒ Aim:
I To identify relevant dimensions of gender complexity andimplement them into a complexity metric.
⇒ Method:
I One linguistic area: Africa
I Intra- and intergenealogical typology
⇒ Data:
I 84 languages from 17 different genealogical units from Africa.
I Descriptive resources and consultation of language experts.
4 / 37
−10 0 10 20 30 40 50
−30
−20
−10
010
2030
0 500 1000 1500 km
scale approx 1:78,000,000
The language sample
Legend
BantuBerberChadicCushiticDizoidE. NiloticHadzaKhoe−KwadiKwa
KxaMelN.C. AtlanticSandaweSemiticS. OmoticT.N. OmoticTuu
5 / 37
Sex−Based vs. Non−Sex−Based systems
−10 0 10 20 30 40 50
−3
0−
20
−1
00
10
20
30
0 500 10001500 km
scale approx 1:78,000,000
Sex−based, 48
Non−sex−based,
36
6 / 37
Proposed complexity metric
Dimension Feature Value Score
Va
lues
Number of gender values (gv)
Two genders 0Three 1/3Four 2/3Five or more 1
Ass
ign
men
tru
les
Nature of assignment rules (ar)Semantic 0Semantic and formal 1
Manipulation of gender assignment triggered by number/countability (m1)Absent 0Present 1
Manipulation of gender assignment triggered by size (m2)Absent 0Present 1
For
m.
mar
kin
g
Number of gender indexing domains (ind)
One 0Two 1/3Three 2/3Four or more 1
Cumulative exponence of gender and number (cum)Noncumulative 0Partially cumulative 1/2Cumulative 1
7 / 37
Results
Gender Complexity Scores
Frequency
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
05
10
15
20
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Languages
Scores
Figure 1: Distribution of the GCSs
I The gender systems of thesampled languages are generallyassociated with high complexityscores.
I Genealogical homogeneity.
8 / 37
Genealogical homogeneity and outliersThe Bantu languages
Table 1: Bantu CGS
ISO Language GCSbaz Tunen 0.95bem Bemba 1⇒bip Bila 0.16bvx Dibole 0.78cgg Chiga 1eto Eton 0.83kik Gikuyu 1kki Kagulu 1ksf Bafia 0.78lea Lega 1⇒lin Lingala (Kinshasa) 0.22lol Mongo-Nkundu 1mcp Makaa 1ndg Ndengereko 1nso Sotho,Northern 0.83nya Chichewa 1sna Shona 1ssw Swati 0.83swa Swahili 1toi Tonga 1tsn Tswana 0.83ven Venda 1zul Zulu 0.83
I Bila [Glottocode: bila1255] (Kutsch Lojenga 2003):I Two genders (Animate vs. Inanimate)I Semantic, non-manipulable assignment rulesI NP-internal agreement onlyI Spoken in a linguistic area at the crossroads
between different language families: Bantu,Ubangi, Nilotic.
I Kinshasa Lingala [Glottocode: ling1269] (Bokamba
1977, 2009; Meeuwis 2013)I Two genders (Animate vs. Inanimate) (fossilized
noun class marking on nouns)I Semantic, non-manipulable assignment rulesI Agreement only on third person pronouns and verbsI Kinshasa Lingala is the direct descendant of the
Bangala pidgin.
9 / 37
Summary
I High gender complexity, constant across genealogically relatedlanguages.
I Gender complexity outliers have peculiar sociolinguisticprofiles (multilingualism, contact).
10 / 37
Next steps
I Integrating the diachronic dimension to the crosslinguisticstudy of gender complexity.
I Digging into the sociohistorical factors that may contribute tocomplexification/simplification of gender systems.
11 / 37
The evolution of gender systems’ complexity(project funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundations, Feb 2015 – Dec 2016)
Aims:
I To study the life-cycle of grammatical gender systems: emergence,expansion, reduction, loss.
I To study the sociohistorical correlates of these patterns of change.
Points of departure:
I Gender systems are very stable (Nichols 1992); they tend to“clusterin adjacent or nearby languages” (Nichols 2003: 300-303).
I Contact-induced loss and emergence of grammatical genderpresuppose intensive bilingualism and heavy borrowing (Thomason2001: 71).
Approach:
I Diachronic/dynamic typology (Greenberg 1978; Croft 2003): thestudy of pathways of change between language types/structures.
Domain of analysis
I Gender agreement patternsHow the marking of grammatical gender on modifiers,predicates, pronouns changes over time and under thepressure of language contact.
Why?
I Inflectional morphology = morphological complexity
I Morphological complexity is sensitive to language contactdynamics (Lupyan & Dale 2010; Bentz et al. 2015).
14 / 37
Method
I Convenience sample of 15 sets of closely related languages (36lngs in total), each representing:
I Reduction/loss/expansion/emergence of gender agreementI A diverse range of sociohistorical profiles:
e.g., standard/prestige languages vs. minority languages;high-contact varieties vs. low-contact varieties.
I Data collected through a questionnaire and descriptiveresources.
15 / 37
The language sample
Legend
Balto−SlavicBantuBasqueChamorroCentral GunwinyguanGermanicGhana−Togo−MountainGreek
Insular CelticIranianKhasianLezgicMekMichifThebor
16 / 37
Patterns of change
Legend
Emergence = 5/36Loss = 7/36Expansion = 6/36
Reduction = 8/36Retention = 8/36Lack = 2/36
17 / 37
Two paths of loss/reduction
1. Morphophonological erosion of agreement morphology
2. Redistribution of agreement patterns
attributive (...) pers. pronoun
MORPH. EROSION
REDISTRIBUTION
Reduction/loss by morphophonological erosionStandard Swedish (Indo-European, Germanic)
I Adnominal gender agreement: Common vs. Neuter GenderI en person ‘a person’I ett hus ‘a house’
Table 2: Personal Pronouns
Hum. and Higher Anim. M F Phan ‘he’ hon ‘she’ de ‘they’
Inanim. C N Pden ‘it’ det ‘it’ de ‘they’
I Comparative evidence from other Swedish dialectsI Elfdalian Sw.: triparite gender system maintained throughout
the agreement system (Akerberg 2012)I Karleby Sw.:
complete gender loss except for definite article, personal anddemonstrative pronouns (Hulden 1972; Hultman 1894).
19 / 37
Reduction/Loss by redistribution
(1) Axo Cappadocian (Indo-European, Greek; Karatsareas2014: 79-80)
tdef.sg.gen
spitcuhouse.sg.gn
tadef.pl
ndix(u)swall.pl
xtizmenabuilt.pl
‘The walls of the house (are) built.’
(2) Modern Standard Greek (Indo-European, Greek; Karatsareas2014: 79-80)
idef.m.pl
tıciwall.m.pl
inebe.prs.3pl
xtixmenibuilt.m.pl
‘the walls are built’.
I Comparative evidence from other Asia Minor Greek dialects:I Pontic Greek: the expansion of neuter agreement is
semantically and syntactically constrained(inanimate nouns, agreement targets non-adjacent to nouns).
20 / 37
Emergent gender agreement patterns
The diachrony of many gender systems “can at best bereconstructed, but not directly observed” (Luraghi 2011: 435).
I Focus of the project: young, and grammatically non-pervasivegender systems.
1. Resulting from light nouns, e.g., ‘man’, ‘woman’,grammaticalizing as anaphoric devices (Walchli accepted)
2. Resulting from borrowing of nouns and agreeing adnominalmodifiers.
21 / 37
Emergent gender agreement patterns
The diachrony of many gender systems “can at best bereconstructed, but not directly observed” (Luraghi 2011: 435).
I Focus of the project: young, and grammatically non-pervasivegender systems. Two types:
1. Resulting from light nouns, e.g., ‘man’, ‘woman’,grammaticalizing as anaphoric devices (Walchli accepted)
2. Resulting from borrowing of nouns and agreeingadnominal modifiers.
21 / 37
Borrowed gender agreement
LanguagesI Chamorro (Austronesian)
Contact language:Spanish
I Lekeitio Basque (Basque)
Contact language:Spanish
I Schumcho, Jangshung(Bodic, Thebor)
Contact language:Northern IndiaIndo-Europeanlanguages
Shared characteristics
X Gender agreement patterns passedthrough borrowing of inflected forms.
X Gender agreement targets are a closedclass of property words.
X Gender agreement patterns are alwayssemantic (natural gender distinctions).
22 / 37
Borrowed gender agreementChamorro (Austronesian, Marian Islands; Huber 2011: 67)
(3) Chamorro Feminine Gender (Stolz 2012: 123)
Ma-nobena-na-yepass-novena-red-ref
idef
mi-milagros-aabound-miraculous-f
nalink
Bithen.Virgin
‘A novena is being conducted for the abundantly miraculousVirgin.’
(4) Chamorro Non-Feminine Gender (Stolz 2012: 125)
desdesince
antititesred:before
nalink
tiempotime
estaalready
gofvery
bunit-unice-nf
nalink
siudatown
idef
yaTN
Hagatna.Hagatna
‘A very long time ago, Hagatna was a very pretty town already.’
23 / 37
Discussion
I Attributive modifiers and personal pronouns have a specialstatus in the unfolding of diachronic change in the domain ofgender marking.
I Under gender reduction/loss,I The direction of change differs depending on the process
involved – morphophonological erosion vs. redistributionI Two distinct functional principles can motivate this
directionality:I the syntactic cohesion between agreement targets and
controller nounsI the sensitivity of different agreement targets to the semantic
properties of nouns and discourse referents.
24 / 37
Within Eurasia, patterns of change cluster aroundlanguage-family edges
Languages Family Contact family Observed patternCappadocian Greek Greek Turkic LossTamian Latvian Balto-Slavic Finnic LossAghul, Udi Lezgic Turkic LossKarleby Swedish North Germanic Finnic Near-lossKelasi, Kaftej Northwestern Iranian Turkic Loss and expansionLekeitio Basque Basque Ibero-Romance EmergenceShumcho, Jangshung Thebor Indo-Aryan Emergence
I Outlier languages within a family are neighbor with eachother.
I This is in alignment with Nichols’ (2003) observation wherebygrammatical gender is a cluster phenomenon.
Asymmetries in the relationship between languages incontact (may) explain the direction of change
I Contact-induced loss and emergence of gender agreementmorphology presuppose prolonged contact and extensivebilingualism.
I The direction of change is to some extent predicted by the prestigedynamics between the languages in contact
Languages Change Dominant contact lng GG in thedominant lng
Aghul, Udi (Lezgic) Loss Azerbaijani (Turkic), NOGeorgian (Kartvelian)
Igo (Ghana-Togo-Mountain) Loss Ewe (Gbe) NOTamian Latvian (Balto-Slavic) Loss Livonian, Estonian (Finnic) YESChamorro (Chamorro) Emergence Spanish (Romance) YESLekeitio Basque (Basque) Emergence Spanish (Romance) YES
26 / 37
To sum up
This project has contributed to highlight:
I types of changes in gender agreement systems and possibledirectionalities in the spread of these changes
I a number of sociohistorical variables that are relavant to theunderstanding of the evolution of gender agreement systems.
Limitations:
I Only a limited number of languages per family.
I Too little data for some of the languages in the sample.
27 / 37
Next step
I Using the results of the study as a starting point for furtherhypothesis testing on larger data sets (one family in detail),and with the support of quantitative methods.
28 / 37
Correlates of restructuring in Bantu gender systems (withAnnemarie Verkerk, MPI – Jena)
I Studying the diversity of the gender systems of the Bantulanguages.
I Testing the models of language change that account best forwithin-family variation in this domain of grammar.
I Investigating socio-historical correlates of the distribution ofthis variation.
The Bantu languages and their gender systems
(5) Gender marking in Chichewa (Kiso 2012: 18)
chi-nkhaniracl7-scorpion
cha-chi-kaziass-cl7-female
chi-ku-dzi-kandacl7.sbj-pres-refl-scratch
“The female scorpion is scratching itself”.
(6) Gender marking in Kinshasa Lingala (Meeuwis2013: 30)
a. Mw-anacl1-child
a-ko-kweya3sg.anim-fut-fall
‘The child will fall.’
b. Ndakocl9.book
e-ko-kweya3sg.inan-fut-fall
‘The house will fall.’
30 / 37
The Bantu languages and their gender systems
(7) Gender marking in Chichewa (Kiso 2012: 18)
chi-nkhaniracl7-scorpion
cha-chi-kaziass-cl7-female
chi-ku-dzi-kandacl7.sbj-pres-refl-scratch
“The female scorpion is scratching itself”.
(8) Gender marking in Kinshasa Lingala(Meeuwis2013: 30)
a. Mw-anacl1-child
a-ko-kweya3sg.anim-fut-fall
‘The child will fall.’
b. Ndakocl9.book
e-ko-kweya3sg.inan-fut-fall
‘The house will fall.’
30 / 37
Questions
I How do we go from the Chichewatype to the Kinshasa Lingala type?
I Why does this happen?
The evolution of Bantu gender marking systemsI Questions
1. Which word classes carry gender marking besides nouns (e.g.,pronouns, verbs, adjectives)?
2. Are animacy-based distinctions part of the gender markingsystem?
I Quantitative data analysisI The coding will be mapped on the Bantu phylogenetic tree
(Grollemund et al. 2015) to estimate transition probabilitiesbetween attested systems using Phylogenetic ComparativeMethods.
Hypotheses
1. Animacy-based distinctions encroach the gender marking systemstarting from anaphoric pronouns and gender markers on verbs.
2. Marking on nouns is more stable than marking on other wordclasses.(Wald 1975; Di Garbo & Miestamo accepted)
31 / 37
Sociohistorical correlates
I Variables we plan to work with:I Population data (both L1 and L2)I Presence/absence of gender systems in neighboring languages
Hypotheses
1. Large populations with high proportions of L2 users and intenselanguage contact predict reduction and/or loss of gender marking.
2. Small populations with low proportions of L2 users and intenselanguage contact predict retention of gender marking (groupidentity marking) or its reduction/loss (shift-induced interference).
3. Geographic proximity between related and unrelated languagespredicts convergence in the domain of gender marking.
32 / 37
What we’ve done so farI Defined the coding procedure
I Collected data about the gender system of 130+ Bantu languages.
0 10 20 30 40 50
−30
−20
−10
0
0 500 1000 km
scale approx 1:32,000,000
Languages sampled so far
A15A15A15A15
A31, A221
A51A601
A72
A74
A75, A751
A83
A84A841, A842
A91
A92
A93
B202
B25B251 B252
B304B305B42
B52
B61
B77b, B78 B85B85
C12 C13
C14
C25
C30A
C30bC30b
C33
C36e
C37C43, C44
C441C52
C63, C62
C71C83
D13
D22
D26D27
D301
D33
E55 E56H10?
H14 − H16
JE15
JE42
L31
R20 (R21 − R24, R11−R118 R421−R422)
S407
A101A13 / A141A21A24−26
A33a
A42 A53
A81, A801
B11B201
B21
B22
B22
B23B24B31
B32
B41, B411B51
B62
B71
B73B81
C16
C21 (C23)C22C24
C31C31
C36
C401
C41 C45C54
C61 C611 C36hC74, C75
C81
D11
D201D211, D311, D313
D23
D25 D251
D28
D304
D308
D32
G24
G42 G43
G42 G43
K11
L52
S11 − S15
S20 (S21)
S31S32 S301 − S304
S33S41
S42S43
S53 (S52)
33 / 37
Maho’s (1999) classification of Bantu gender systems
Nouns
1= Tr. 2= Tr. + An. 2i = Tr+Pl 3 = An. +Sg/Pl 4= Sg/Pl 5=NoneElsewhereA = Tr.B = Tr. + An.C = An. + Sg/PlD = Sg/PlE = None
34 / 37
Maho’s (1999) typology of Bantu gender systems
Nouns
1= Tr. 2= Tr. + An. 2i = Tr+Pl 3 = An. + Sg/Pl 4= Sg/Pl 5= NoneElsewhereA = Tr. ZuluB = Tr. + An. Swahili LundaC = An. + Sg/Pl Lingala K. Lingala Amba, Bera Pande HomaD = Sg/Pl YansE = None Kituba Komo
34 / 37
0 10 20 30 40 50
−30
−20
−10
0
0 500 1000 km
scale approx 1:40,000,000
The languages of the sample based on Maho's types
1A1A1A1A
1A
1B1B1A1A
1A
1A
1A1A1A
3D
3C
1A1A1A 1A
1A1A1A1A
1A
1B 1B1D
4C 4C
1A
1A
1A
1C2'C
1B
1B
1A 1B1A1A
1B
1A1A
1A
3C
1A1A
3C
1B
1A1E
1B
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A1A1A1A
1A
1A 1A
1A
1A1B
1A
1A
1A
1A1A1A
1A
1B1A
1A1A
1B1A
1A
1A1A1A
1A1A1A
1A
1B 1B1A
1B1A
1A
1A
1B3C
3E
1A
1A
5C4E
1A
1B
1B
1B
1B
2B
1A
1A
1A 1A
1A1A
1A1A
1A
35 / 37
Some observations
I The gender systems of several Bantu languages show a biastowards the overt expression of animacy distinctions.
I The spread of this feature within the family is NOT a unitaryprocess.
I Multiple developments must be posited in different subareasof the Bantu speaking world.
36 / 37
The northern Bantu borderlands
0 500 1000 km
scale approx 1:26,000,000
Radically restructured gender systems in the Bantu northern borderlands
keb
nra
swc
nda
bsibssbqzmbonkc
bvbewo
bum
fan
mcp
njy
ozm
kwu
sxe
koqsakmhb
picbuwsnq
nzb
mdt
zmx
mdw
bxg
bjabbmsoc
tllbuf
zmq
zmbbnx
kam
lug
guz
lua
bdubwtbridua
yko
abbksf
nmg
mye
syi
zmnwumtsv
kbs
dma
mbm
teg
tii
loq
mdu
akwkoh
mmz
ndw
lse
pae
loo
yel
dez
mdq
lea
hoo
buu
lfabag
ifm
szg
bkt
bww
nxd
nlj
kng
swj
iyx
ngc agh
lol
lik
bou
wmw
swh
cjk
lin
yns
ktu
Nzadi
lun
kkj
kbj
bip brfrwm
pmm
kmw
bkj mdn
boy
hom
Legend
Type 1: N_tr; AG_an
Type 2: N_an; AG_an
Type 3: N_an; AG_sg/pl
Type 4: N_rel; AG_none
No radical restructuring
Atlantic
Ocean
Two possible scenarios:1. Substratum interference from pre-Bantu populations shifting to
Bantu languages, possibly including Pygmies.
2. Continued contact between Bantu and non-Bantu languages in thearea.
37 / 37
References I
Akerberg, Bengt. 2012. Alvdalsk grammatik. Ulum Dalska.
Audring, Jenny. 2014. Gender as a complex feature. Language Sciences 43. 5–17. [Special issue: Exploringgrammatical gender].
Beckner, Clay, Nick C. Ellis, Richard Blythe, John Holland, Joan Bybee, Jinyun Ke, Morten H. Christiansen, DianeLarsen-Freeman, William Croft & Tom Shoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: PositionPaper. Language Learning 59. 1–26.
Bentz, Christian, Annemarie Verkerk, Douwe Kiela, Felix Hill & Paul Buttery. 2015. Adaptive communication:Languages with more non-native speakers tend to have fewer word forms. Plos One 10. 1–23.
Bokamba, E. 2009. The spread of Lingala as a lingua franca in the Congo Basin. In Fiona McLaughlin (ed.), Thelanguages of urban Africa, 50–70. London: Continuum.
Bokamba, Eyamba. 1977. The impact of multilingualism on language structures: the case of Central Africa.Anthropological Linguistics 19. 181–202.
Bostoen, Koen & Hilde Gunnink. in preparation. The impact of autochthonous languages on bantu languagevariation: A comparative view on southern and central africa. In Cambridge handbook of language contact, .
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, Osten. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dahl, Osten. 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic complexity. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), TheOxford handbook of grammaticalization, 153–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Garbo, Francesca. 2014. Gender and its interaction with number and evaluative morphology: An intra- andintergenealogical typological survey of Africa. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm Universitydissertation.
Di Garbo, Francesca. 2016. Exploring grammatical complexity crosslinguistically: The case of gender. LinguisticDiscovery 14. 46–85. DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.468.
Di Garbo, Francesca. under review. The complexity of gender and language ecology, .
References IIDi Garbo, Francesca & Matti Miestamo. accepted. The evolving complexity of gender agreement systems. In Di
Garbo, Francesca and Bernhard Walchli (ed.), Grammatical gender and linguistic complexity, To be submittedto: Berlin: Language Science Press.
Greenberg, Joseph. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson &Edith Moravcisk (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, 47–92. Standford: StanfordUniversity Press.
Grollemund, Rebecca, Simon Brandford, Koen Bostoen, Andrew Meade, Chris Venditti & Mark Pagel. 2015. Bantuexpansion shows that habitat alters the route and pace of human dispersals. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Science of the United States of America 112. 13296–13301.
Huber, Christian. 2011. Some notes on gender and number marking in Shumcho. In Gerda Lechleitner & ChristianLiebl (eds.), Jahrbuch des phonogrammarchivs, vol. 2, 52–90. Gottingen: Cuvillier Verlag.
Hulden, Lars. 1972. Genussystemet i Karleby och Nedervetil. Folkmasstudier 22. 47–82.
Hultman, Oskar Fredrik. 1894. Oskar fredrik hultman. Helsinki: Svenska landsmalsforeningen.
Karatsareas, Petros. 2014. On the diachrony of gender in Asia Minor Greek: the development of semanticagreement in Pontic. Language Sciences 43. 77–101.
Kiso, Andrea. 2012. Tense and aspect in Chichewa, Citumbuka and Cisena. a description and comparison of thetense-aspect systems in three southeastern Bantu languages: Stockholm University dissertation.
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 2003. Bila (D 32). In Derek Nurse & Gerard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu languages,450–474. London: Routledge.
Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLOS one 5(1). 1–10.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: Typological considerations. FoliaLinguistica 45. 435–464.
Maho, Jouni. 1999. A comparative study of Bantu noun classes. Goteborg: Orientalia et Africana Gothoburgensiadissertation. Acta universitatis gothoburgensia.
Maitz, Peter & Attila Nemeth. 2014. Language contact and morphosyntactic complexity: Evidence from German.Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1). 1–29.
41 / 37
References III
Meeuwis, Michael. 2013. Lingala. In Susanne Michaelis, Philipe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber(eds.), The survey of pidgin and creole languages, vol. III, Contact languages based on languages from Africa,Asia, Australia and the Americas, 25–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics. In Krista Kerge & Maria-Maren Sepper (eds.),Finest Linguistics. Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics, Tallin, May 6–7,2004, 11–26. Tallin: TLU.
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Matti Miestamo, KaiusSinnemaki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 23–41. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), Thehandbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stolz, Thomas. 2012. Survival in a niche. On gender-copy in Chamorro (and sundry languages). In MartineVanhove, Thomas Stolz, , Hitomi Otsuka & Aina Urdtze (eds.), Morphologies in contact, 93–140. Munich:Akademie-Verlag.
Thomason, Sarah. 2001. Language contact: an introduction. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Walchli, Bernhard. accepted. The feminine gender gram, incipient gender marking, maturity, and extractinganaphoric gender markers from parallel texts. In Di Garbo, Francesca and Bernhard Walchli (ed.), Grammaticalgender and linguistic complexity, To be submitted to: Berlin: Language Science Press.
Wald, Benji V. 1975. Animate concord in northeast coastal Bantu: Its linguistic and social implications as a case ofgrammatical convergence. Studies in African Linguistics 6. 267–314.
42 / 37