Volume 26, Issue 3

The middle voice is a notoriously controversial typological notion. Building on previous work (e.g. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins), in this paper I propose a new working definition of middle markers as inherently polyfunctional constructions which are partly associated with valency change in opposition to bivalent (or more) verbs and partly lexically obligatory with monovalent verbs. Based on this definition, the paper undertakes a systematic survey of 149 middle voice constructions in a sample of 129 middle-marking languages. Evidence from the sample shows that middle voice systems display a much richer variation in forms and functions than is reported in the literature. This richer empirical evidence challenges some of the mainstream views on middle marking, especially its purported connection with reflexivity and grooming-type events, and calls for an overall rethinking of the typology of the middle voice.

Phylogenetic comparative methods are new in our field and are shrouded, for most linguists, in at least a little mystery. Yet the path that led to their discovery in comparative biology is so similar to the methodological history of balanced sampling, that it is only an accident of history that they were not discovered by a linguistic typologist. Here we clarify the essential logic behind phylogenetic comparative methods and their fundamental relatedness to a deep intellectual tradition focussed on sampling. Then we introduce concepts, methods and tools which will enable typologists to use these methods in everyday typological research. The key commonality of phylogenetic comparative methods and balanced sampling is that they attempt to deal with statistical non-independence due to genealogy. Whereas sampling can never achieve independence and requires most comparative data to be discarded, phylogenetic comparative methods achieve independence while retaining and using all comparative data. We discuss the essential notions of phylogenetic signal; uncertainty about trees; typological averages and proportions that are sensitive to genealogy; comparison across language families; and the effects of areality. Extensive supplementary materials illustrate computational tools for practical analysis and we illustrate the methods discussed with a typological case study of the laminal contrast in Pama-Nyungan.

This article looks at cross-linguistic variation in lexical iconicity, addressing the question of to what extent and how this variation is patterned. More than in spoken languages, iconicity is highly frequent in the lexicons of sign languages. It is also highly complex, in that often multiple motivated components jointly shape an iconic lexeme. Recent typological research on spoken languages finds tentative iconic patterning in a large number of basic lexical items, underlining once again the significance of iconicity for human language. The uncontested and widespread use of iconicity found in the lexicons of sign languages enables us to take typological research into lexical iconicity to the next level. Indeed, previous studies have shown cross-linguistic variation in: a) the use of embodying and handling handshapes in sign languages (mostly of European origin) and b) the frequency of space-based size depiction in African and European sign languages. The two types of variation may be interrelated, as handling handshapes may use space-based size depiction. In this study, we first replicate earlier studies on the distribution of embodying and handling handshapes, this time in a data set consisting of a relatively large set of sign languages ( n  = 11), most of which are used in Africa. The results confirm significant variation across these sign languages. These findings are then compared to the use of space-based size depiction, revealing that these patterns independently from the distribution of embodying/handling handshapes. We argue that the results call for expanding typological studies on representational strategies in iconic signs beyond the now relatively well studied instrument/manipulation alternation. Fine-grained analyses on a multitude of iconic features in signs are likely to reveal cross-linguistic variation in iconic tendencies in SL lexicons.

In this paper, we propose two new statistical controls for genealogical and areal bias in typological samples. Our test case being the effect of VO-order effect on affix position (prefixation vs. suffixation), we show how statistical modeling including a phylogenetic regression term (phylogenetic control) and a two-dimensional Gaussian Process (areal control) can be used to capture genealogical and areal effects in a large but unbalanced sample. We find that, once these biases are controlled for, VO-order has no effect on affix position. Another important finding, which is in line with previous studies, is that areal effects are as important as genealogical effects, emphasizing the importance of areal or contact control in typological studies built on language samples. On the other hand, we also show that strict probability sampling is not required with the statistical controls that we propose, as long as the sample is a variety sample large enough to cover different areas and families. This has the crucial practical consequence that it allows us to include as much of the available information as possible, without the need to artificially restrict the sample and potentially lose otherwise available information.