Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 16 June 2019

(p. 1139) References

(p. 1139) References

All links accessed October/November 2016, unless otherwise indicated.

Abadie, Peggy. 1974. ‘Nepali as an ergative language.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 1: 156–177.Find this resource:

Abney, Steven. 1987. ‘The English noun structure in its sentential aspect.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Abramovitz, Rafael. 2015. ‘Another look at the Chukchi spurious antipassive.’ MS, University of Chicago.Find this resource:

Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

Adams, Karen L. & Alexis Manaster-Ramer. 1988. ‘Some questions of topic/focus choice in Tagalog.’ Oceanic Linguistics 27: 79–101.Find this resource:

Adelaar, K. Alexander. 1992. Proto Malayic: The reconstruction of its phonology and parts of its lexicon and morphology. 119. Sydney: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Find this resource:

Adelaar, Alexander (ed.). 2013. Voice variation in Austronesian languages of Indonesia, vol. 54 of NUSA. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Find this resource:

Adelaar, Alexander & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.). 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Adelaar, Wilhem. 2000. ‘Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental. Harakmbut y Katukina,’ in L. Miranda Esquerré (ed.), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica, 2, Lima, Universidad Ricardo Palma, 219–236.Find this resource:

Agha, Asif. 1990. ‘Lexical structure and grammatical categories in Lhasa Tibetan.’ PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Find this resource:

Agha, Asif. 1993. Structural form and utterance context in Lhasa Tibetan. Peter Lang: New York.Find this resource:

Aguirre, Carmen. 2003. ‘Early verb development in one Spanish-speaking child,’ in D. Bittner, W. U. Dressler, & M. Kilani-Schoch (eds.), Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–27.Find this resource:

Aguirre, Carmen. 2006. ‘What do overregularizations tell us about morphological knowledge?’ Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación, Facultad de Ciencias de la Información, 26: 3–11.Find this resource:

Ahlsén, Elisabeth. 2006. Introduction to neurolinguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. ‘Spatial, temporal and structural usages of Urdu ko,’ in Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 1–13.Find this resource:

Ahmed, Tafseer. 2010. ‘The unaccusativity/unergativity distinction in Urdu.’ Journal of South Asian Linguistics 3: 3–22.Find this resource:

(p. 1140) Aijmer, Karin. 1989. ‘Themes and tails: The discourse functions of dislocated elements.’ Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12(2): 137–154.Find this resource:

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2009. ‘Syntactic ergativity in Paumarí,’ in S. G. Obeng (ed.), Topics in descriptive and African linguistics: Essays in honor of distinguished professor Paul Newman. Munich: Lincom Europa, 11–127.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith. 1999a. ‘Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil.’ Language 75: 451–485.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith. 1999b. ‘Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith. 2003a. ‘Differential coding, partial blocking, and bidirectional OT,’ in Pawel Nowak and Corey Yoquelet (eds.), BLS 29. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1–16.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith. 2003b. ‘Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.Find this resource:

Aissen, Judith. 2011. ‘On the syntax of agent focus in K’ichee,’ in Kirill Shklovsky, Pedro Mateo Pedro, & Jessica Coon (eds.), Proceedings of formal approaches to Mayan linguistics I (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 63). Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1–16.Find this resource:

Akhtar, Raja Nasim. 1999. ‘Aspectual complex predicates in Punjabi.’ PhD dissertation, University of Essex.Find this resource:

Alberdi, Xabier. 2003. ‘The transitivity of borrowed verbs in Basque: An outline,’ in Bernard Oyharçabal (ed.), Inquiries into the lexicon–syntax relations in Basque. Supplements of Anuario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo 46: 23–56.Find this resource:

Albizu, Pablo. 2002. ‘Basque verbal morphology: Redefining cases,’ in X. Artiagoitia, P. Goenaga, & J.A. Lakarra (eds.), Erramu Boneta: Festschrift for Rudolf P.G. de Rijk. Bilbao: UPV-EHU, 1–19.Find this resource:

Albizu, Pablo & Luis Eguren. 2000. ‘An optimality theoretic account for “ergative displacement” in Basque,’ in W.U. Dressler, O.E. Pfeiffer, M.A. Pöchtrager, & J.R. Rennison (eds.), Morphological Analysis in Comparison. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Albright, Adam. 2002. ‘The identification of bases in morphological paradigms.’ PhD dissertation, UCLA.Find this resource:

Aldai, Gontzal. 2008. ‘From ergative case marking to semantic case marking: The case of historical Basque,’ in Mark Donohue & Soren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–218.Find this resource:

Aldai, Gontzal. 2009. ‘Is Basque morphologically ergative?’ Studies in Language 33–4: 783–831.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2002. ‘Wh-movement in Seediq and Tagalog,’ in Andrea Rackowski & Norvin Richards (eds.), Proceedings of AFLA 8: The 8th meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–28.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. ‘Ergativity and word order in Austronesian Languages.’ PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2006. ‘Absolutive case in Tagalog,’ in Jackie Bunting, Sapna Desai, Robert Peachey, Chris Straughn, & Zuzana Tomkova (eds.), Proceedings from the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1–15.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2008a. ‘Generative approaches to ergativity.’ Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 966–995.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2008b. ‘Phase-based account of extraction in Indonesian.’ Lingua 118: 1440–1469.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2008c. ‘Minimalist analysis of ergativity.’ Sophia Linguistica 55: 123–142.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2009. ‘Minimalist questions for the nominalist analysis of Tagalog syntax.’ Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 51–62.Find this resource:

(p. 1141) Aldridge, Edith. 2010. ‘Directionality in word order change in Austronesian languages,’ in Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, Sheila Watts, & David Willis (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 169–180.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2011. ‘Antipassive in Austronesian alignment change,’ in Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 331–345.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2012a. ‘Event existentials in Tagalog,’ in Lauren Eby Clemens Greg Scontras & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Society (AFLA 18). Online publication hosted by the University of Western Ontario, 16–30.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2012b. ‘Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog.’ Lingua 122: 192–203.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2013a. ‘Nominalization source of ergativity in Tagalog.’ Paper presented at National Tsinghua University, Graduate Institute of Linguistics.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. 2013b. ‘Origin of ergative variation in austronesian languages.’ Paper presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS), Ottawa, 2013.Find this resource:

Aldridge, Edith. [2015.] ‘A minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages.’ Linguistics Vanguard 1(1): 313–326.Edith.2016‘Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages.’Language and LinguisticsFind this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis. 1999. ‘Remarks on the syntax of process nominals: An ergative pattern in nominative–accusative languages.’ NELS 29: 1–15.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional structure in nominals: Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2004. ‘Inflection class, gender and DP internal structure,’ in G. Müller et al. (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–50.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2008. ‘Tense in the nominal domain: Implications for grammar architecture.’ Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 33–65.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. ‘The subject in situ generalization, and the role of case in driving computations.’ Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2006. ‘From hierarchies to features,’ in Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 41–62.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Christina Sevdali. 2014. ‘Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives.’ Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 1–34.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Schäfer. 2006. ‘The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically,’ in M. Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, & Florian Schäfer. 2009. ‘PP-licensing in nominalizations.’ Proceedings of NELS 38: 38–52.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordachioaia, Mariangeles Cano, Fabienne Martin, & Florian Schäfer. 2013. ‘The realization of external arguments in nominalizations.’ Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 73–95.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordachioaia, & Florian Schäfer. 2011. ‘Syntactic realization of plural in Romance and Germanic nominalizations,’ in K. Arregi et al. (eds.), Romance linguistics 2008: Interactions in Romance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 107–124.Find this resource:

(p. 1142) Alexiadou, Artemis, Gianina Iordachioaia, & Elena Soare. 2010. ‘Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A Distributed Morphology approach.’ Journal of Linguistics 46: 537–574.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis, Terje Lohndal, Tor Afarli, & Maren Berg Grimstad. 2015. ‘Language mixing: A distributed morphology approach.’ Proceedings of NELS 45: 25–38.Find this resource:

Alexiadou, Artemis & Florian Schäfer. 2006. ‘Instrument subjects are agents or causers,’ in Donald Baumer, David Montero, & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 40–48.Find this resource:

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. ‘On doing as you please,’ in Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 275–308.Find this resource:

Allen, Shanley E.M 1996. Aspects of argument structure acquisition in Inuktitut. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Allen, Shanley E.M. 2000. ‘A discourse–pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut.’ Linguistics 38: 483–521.Find this resource:

Allen, Shanley E.M. 2013. ‘The acquisition of ergativity in Inuktitut,’ in E.L. Bavin & S. Stolle (eds.), The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 71–105.Find this resource:

Allen, Shanley E.M. & Heike Schröder. 2003. ‘Preferred argument structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 301–338.Find this resource:

Allen, W. Sidney. 1960. ‘Notes on the Rājasthānī verb.’ Indian Linguistics 21: 4–13.Find this resource:

Allen, W. Sidney. 1964. ‘Transitivity and possession.’ Language 40: 337–343.Find this resource:

Alsdorf, Ludwig. 1936. ‘Vasudevahiṃḍī, a specimen of archaic Jaina Maharastri.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 8(2–3): 319–333.Find this resource:

Alves, Flávia de Castro. 2004. ‘O Timbira falado pelos Canela Apãnjekrá.’ PhD dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Find this resource:

Alves, Flávia de Castro. 2010. ‘Evolution of alignment in Timbira.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 439–475Find this resource:

Amberber, Mengistu. 2009. ‘Differentical case marking of arguments in Amharic,’ in Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 339–355.Find this resource:

Amritavalli, Raghavachari. 1979. ‘The representation of transitivity in the lexicon.’ Linguistic Analysis 5(1): 71–92.Find this resource:

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. ‘Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis,’ in Lorie Heggie & Francisco Ordonez (eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives (Linguistics Today 74). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 199–235.Find this resource:

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2006. ‘Clitic doubling,’ in Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 519–581.Find this resource:

Anand, Pranav & Andrew Nevins. 2006. ‘The locus of ergative assignment: Evidence from scope,’ in Alana Johns, Diane Massam, & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues: Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, vol. 65. Dordrecht: Springer, 3–25.Find this resource:

Andersen, Paul Kent. 1986. ‘Dieta-partizipialkonstruktion bei a soka: Passiv oder ergativ?’ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 75–95.Find this resource:

Andersen, Torben. 1988. ‘Ergativity in Päri, a Nilotic OVS language.’ Lingua 75: 289–324.Find this resource:

Andersen, Torben. 1991. ‘Subject and topic in Dinka.’ Studies in Language 15: 265–294.Find this resource:

(p. 1143) Andersen, Torben. 1992. ‘Morphological stratification in Dinka: On the alternations of voice quality, vowel length and tone in the morphology of transitive verbal roots in a monosyllabic language.’ Studies in African Linguistics 23: 1–63.Find this resource:

Andersen, Torben. 2000. ‘Anywa and Päri, II: A morphosyntactic comparison.’ Afrika und Übersee 83: 65–87.Find this resource:

Andersen, Torben. 2002. ‘Case inflection and nominal head marking in Dinka.’ Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 23: 1–30.Find this resource:

Anderson, Greogory & Randall Eggert. 2001. ‘A typology of verb agreement in Burushaski.’ Linguistics in the Tibeto-Berman Area 24: 235–254.Find this resource:

Anderson, Neil & Martha Wade. 1988. ‘Ergativity and Control in Folopa.’ Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 19: 1–16.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On the linguistic status of the performative/constative distinction. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages,’ in Charles N. Li & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 1–23.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. ‘On mechanisms by which languages become ergative,’ in Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, 317–363.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. ‘On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2(2): 157–218.Find this resource:

Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. ‘Morphological change,’ in Frederick Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 324–362.Find this resource:

Anderson, Victoria & Yuko Otsuka. 2006. ‘The phonetics and phonology of “definitive accent” in Tongan.’ Oceanic Linguistics 45: 33–53.Find this resource:

Andrews, Avery D. 1990. ‘Case structures and control in modern Icelandic,’ in Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and semantics 24: Modern Icelandic syntax. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 187–234.Find this resource:

Andvik, Erik E. 1999. ‘Tshangla grammar.’ PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Find this resource:

Annamalai, E. & P.P. Giridhar. 1991. ‘Multiple case markers and case roles in Angami: A raising solution.’ Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 51/52, Professor S.M. Katre, Felicitation Volume (1991–1992), 221–228.Find this resource:

Anton I, Catholicos. 1885. Kartuli ɣrammatika [based on 1767 version]. Tbilisi: Ekvtime Xeladzis stamba.Find this resource:

Aoshima, Sachiko, Colin Phillips, & Amy Weinberg. 2004. ‘Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language.’ Journal of Memory and Language 51: 23–54.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun–phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira. 2000. ‘The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher accessibility markers,’ in Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language. Palo Alto: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira. 2001. ‘Accessibility theory: An overview,’ in Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord, & Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 29–87.Find this resource:

Ariel, Mira, Elitzur Dattner, John W. Du Bois, & Tal Linzen (2015). ‘Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status.’ Studies in Language 39(2): 257–321.Find this resource:

Arka, I. Wayan. 2004. Balinese morphosyntax: A lexical–functional approach. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Arka, I. Wayan & Christopher D. Manning. 1998. Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

(p. 1144) Arka, I. Wayan & Christopher D. Manning. 2008. ‘Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective,’ in Peter K. Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds.), Voice and grammatical relation in Austronesian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 45–69.Find this resource:

Arka, I. Wayan & Malcolm Ross (eds.). 2005. The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies. Number 571 in Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU.Find this resource:

Arkadiev, Peter. 2008a. ‘Differential argument marking in two-term case systems and its implications for a general theory of case marking,’ in H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer, 151–173.Find this resource:

Arkadiev, Peter. 2008b. ‘Thematic roles, event structure, and argument encoding in semantically aligned languages,’ in Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–117.Find this resource:

Arkadiev, Peter. 2012. ‘On the meaning of allomorphy: The case of the ergative.’ Paper presented at the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 9–12.Find this resource:

Arkadiev, Peter & Alexander Letuchiy. 2008. ‘Derivacii antipassivnoj zony v adygejskom jazyke,’ in Vladimir Plungian & Sergey Tatevosov (eds.), Issledovanija po otglagol’noj derivacii. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur, 77–102.Find this resource:

Arnold, Jennifer E. 2003. ‘Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 225–245.Find this resource:

Aronoff, Mark. 1980. ‘Contextuals.’ Language 56: 744–758.Find this resource:

Aronoff, Mark. 2013. ‘Varieties of morphological defaults and exceptions.’ ReVel 7: 84–97.Find this resource:

Aronson, Howard. 1970. ‘Towards a semantic analysis of case and subject in Georgian.’ Lingua 25: 291–301.Find this resource:

Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2008. ‘Agreement and clitic restrictions in Basque,’ in Susann Fischer Roberta D’Alessandro & Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement restrictions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 49–86.Find this resource:

Arregi, Karlos & Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol. 86. Dordrecht: Springer.Find this resource:

Arregui, Ana, Mariá Luisa Rivero, & Andrés Pablo Salanova. 2014. ‘Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 307–362Find this resource:

Artawa, Ketut. 1994. ‘Ergativity in Balinese syntax.’ PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Find this resource:

Arteatx, Iñigo. 2007. ‘Euskarazko oharmen aditzen osagarrietako perpaus jokatugabeak.’ Uztaro 63: 31–63.Find this resource:

Arteatx, Iñigo. 2012. ‘Perception verb complements in Basque,’ in U. Etxeberria, R. Etxepare, & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), Noun phrases and nominalizations in Basque. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 397–436.Find this resource:

Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2001. ‘Seemingly ergative and ergatively seeming,’ in J. Herschenson, E. Mallén, & K. Zagona (eds.), Features and interfaces in Romance: Essays in honor of Heles Contreras. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 1–22.Find this resource:

Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. ‘Complementation,’ in J.I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 634–709.Find this resource:

Artshuler, Daniel. 2013. ‘There is no neutral aspect,’ in T. Snider (ed.), Proceedings of SALT 23, 40–62.Find this resource:

Ashby, William J. & Paola Bentivoglio. 1993. ‘Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish.’ Language Variation and Change 5: 61–76.Find this resource:

(p. 1145) Ashby, William J. & Paola Bentivoglio. 2003. ‘Preferred argument structure across time and space: A comparative diachronic Analysis of French and Spanish,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 61–80.Find this resource:

Assmann, Anke, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller, & Philipp Weisser. 2015. ‘Ergatives move too early: On an instance of opacity in syntax.’ Syntax 18(4): 343–387.]Find this resource:

Aurnague, Michel. 2001. ‘Entités et relations dans les descriptions spatiales: L’espace et son expression en basque et en français. Habilitation thesis.’ Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail.Find this resource:

Austin, Jennifer. 2007. ‘Grammatical interference and the acquisition of ergative case in bilingual children learning Basque and Spanish.’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(3): 315–331.Find this resource:

Austin, Jennifer. 2009. ‘Delay, interference and bilingual development: The acquisition of verbal morphology in children learning Basque and Spanish.’ International Journal of Bilingualism 13(4): 447–479.Find this resource:

Austin, Jennifer. 2010. ‘Rich inflection and the production of root infinitives in child language.’ Morphology 20(1), 41–69.Find this resource:

Austin, Jennifer. 2012. ‘The case–agreement hierarchy in acquisition: Evidence from children learning Basque.’ Lingua 122: 289–302.Find this resource:

Austin, Jennifer. 2013. ‘Ergativity in child Basque,’ in Edith L. Bavin & Sabine Stoll (eds.), The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 35–69.Find this resource:

Austin, Peter. 1981a. ‘Switch-reference in Australia.’ Language 57: 309–334.Find this resource:

Austin, Peter. 1981b. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Austin, Peter. 1982. ‘Transitivity and cognate objects in Australian languages,’ in Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Studies in transitivity (Syntax and Semantics 15). New York: Academic Press, 37–47.Find this resource:

Austin, Peter. 2013. A grammar of Diyari (version 2.5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Austin, Peter, Barry Blake, & Margaret Florey. 2001. ‘Explorations in valency in Austronesian languages.’ La Trobe Papers in Linguistics 11. Bundoora: La Trobe University.Find this resource:

Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire Kryz: Langue caucasique d’Azerbaidjan dialecte d’Alik. Leuven: Peeters.Find this resource:

Authier, Gilles. 2011. ‘From adlocative case to debitive mood without desubordination,’ in Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak (eds.), Tense, aspect, modality and finiteness in East Caucasian languages. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 67–94Find this resource:

Authier, Gilles & Katharina Haude. 2012. Ergativity, valency and voice. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2008. ‘To the right of the clause: Right dislocation vs. afterthought,’ in C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in sentence and text: From a cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 217–239.Find this resource:

Axenov, Serge. 2006. The Balochi language of Turkmenistan: A corpus-based grammatical description. Uppsala: Acta Upsaliensis.Find this resource:

Babaliyeva, Ayten. 2013. ‘Études sur la morphosyntaxe du tabasaran littéraire.’ PhD dissertation, École pratique des hautes études Paris.Find this resource:

Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

(p. 1146) Badecker, Willliam & Frantisek Kuminiak. 2007. ‘Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak.’ Journal of Memory and Language 56(1), 65–85.Find this resource:

Baerman, Matthew. 2009. ‘Case syncretism,’ in Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 219–231.Find this resource:

Baerman, Matthew & Dunstan Brown. 2013. ‘Case syncretism,’ in Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [available online at http://wals.info/chapter/28, accessed 2014–12–11]Find this resource:

Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown, & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bagrationi (Bat’onishvili), Ioane. 1936. K’almasoba. T’pilisi: Saxelgami.Find this resource:

Baker, Brett, & Mark Harvey. 2010. ‘Complex predicate formation,’ in Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker, & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–47.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 1985. ‘The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation.’ Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 1997. ‘Thematic roles and syntactic structure,’ in Lilianne Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73–137.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 2014a. ‘On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45: 341–380.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 2014b. ‘Pseudo noun incorporation as covert noun incorporation: Linearization and crosslinguistic variation.’ Language and Linguistics 15: 5–46.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C. & Nadezhda Vinokurova. 2010. ‘Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 593–642.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C, Kyle Johnson, & Ian Roberts. 1989. ‘Passive arguments raised’. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.Find this resource:

Baker, Mark C, Roberto Aranovich, & Lucía Golluscio. 2005. ‘Two types of syntactic noun incorporation: Noun incorporation in mapudungun and its typological implications.’ Language 81: 138–177.Find this resource:

Bakker, Peter & Yaron Matras. (eds.). 2013. Contact languages: A comprehensive guide. Language Contact and Bilingualism 6. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:

Ball, Douglas. 2007. ‘On ergativity and accusativity in Proto-Polynesian and Proto-Central Pacific.’ Oceanic Linguistics 46(1): 128–153.Find this resource:

Ball, Douglas. 2009. ‘Clause structure and argument realization in Tongan.’ PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Find this resource:

(p. 1147) Ballard, Lee. 2011. ‘Phonology, grammar, morphophonemics,’ in Ameda, Chimcas, Gonzalo A. Tigo, Vicente B. Mesa, & Lee Ballard (eds.), Ibaloy. Baguio: Diteng and the Cordillera Studies Center, University of the Philippines, 772–891.Find this resource:

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur Avraham. 2007. ‘The origin and the typology of the pattern Qtil Li in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic,’ in A. Maman, S.E. Fassberg, & Y. Breuer (eds.), Shaʻare Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish languages in honor of Moshe Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 360–392. [in Hebrew]Find this resource:

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur Avraham. 2011. ‘On the passiveness of one pattern in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: A linguistic and philological discussion.’ Journal of Semitic Studies 56: 111–143.Find this resource:

Bar-el, Leora, Henry Davis, & Lisa Matthewson. 2005. ‘On non-culminating accomplishments.’ Proceedings of NELS 35: 79–92.Find this resource:

Barker, Chris. 1998. ‘Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation.’ Language 74: 695–727.Find this resource:

Baranzehi, Adem. 2003. ‘The Sarawani dialect of Balochi and Persian influence on it,’ in Carina Jahani & Agnes Korn (eds.), The Baloch and their neighbours. Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 75–111Find this resource:

Barotto Alessandra. 2014a ‘Split ergativity in the NENA dialects,’ in G. Khan & L. Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 232–249Find this resource:

Barotto, Alessandra. 2014b. ‘Typology of case alignments in NENA Dialects.’ Ricognizioni [online] 1(1).Find this resource:

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2002. ‘ “Oblique subjects” in Icelandic and German.’ Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 70: 61–99.Find this resource:

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. ‘Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy.’ Morphology 21(3–4): 619–654.Find this resource:

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. ‘Construction-based historical–comparative reconstruction,’ in Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, 438–457.Find this resource:

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2015. ‘Syntax and syntactic reconstruction,’ in Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 343–373.Find this resource:

Barreña, Andoni. 1995. Gramatikaren jabekuntzagarapena eta haur euskaldunak. Bilbao: Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco.Find this resource:

Bashir, Elena. 1999. ‘The Urdu and Hindi ergative postposition ne: Its changing role in the grammar,’ in Rajendra Singh (ed.), The yearbook of South Asian Languages and linguistics. New Delhi: Sage, 11–36.Find this resource:

Bashir, Elena. 2009. ‘Wakhi,’ in G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London: Routledge Curzon, 825–862.Find this resource:

Basilico, David. 2003. ‘The topic of small clauses.’ Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35.Find this resource:

Basilico, David. 2004. ‘Antipassive, anticausative and reflexive: Phases and reflexive morphology.’ Paper presented at the 35th Meeting of the Northeastern Linguistic Society. NELS 35. University of Connecticut, October.Find this resource:

Basilico, David. 2008. ‘The syntactic representation of perfectivity.’ Lingua 118: 1716–1739.Find this resource:

Basilico, David. 2012. ‘The antipassive and its relation to scalar structure,’ in María Cristina Cuervo & Yves Roberge (eds.), The end of argument structure. Bingley: Emerald Group, 75–104.Find this resource:

Basri, Hasan & Daniel Finer. 1987. ‘The definiteness of trace.’ Linguistic Inquiry 18: 141–147.Find this resource:

(p. 1148) Basri, Hasan. 1999. ‘Phonological and syntactic reflections of the morphological structure of Selayarese.’ PhD dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Find this resource:

Bath, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 1991. Grammatical relations: The evidence against their necessity and universality. London & New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread and transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Bauer, Winifred. 1983. ‘On the category “direct object” in Maori.’ Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of New Zealand Conference, Auckland.Find this resource:

Bauer, Winifred. 1997. The Reed reference grammar of Māori. Auckland, NZ: Reed.Find this resource:

Bavant, Marc. 2014. Resultatif, diathese et possession en basque, vieux perse et elamite. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Find this resource:

Bavin Edith L. 1992. ‘The acquisition of Warlpiri,’ in D.I. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 309–372.Find this resource:

Bavin Edith L. 2000. ‘Ellipsis in Warlpiri children’s narratives: An analysis of frog stories.’ Linguistics 38: 569–589.Find this resource:

Bavin, Edith L. 2004. ‘Focusing on where,’ in S. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives: volume 2. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 17–35.Find this resource:

Bavin, Edith L. 2013. ‘The acquisition of ergativity in Warlpiri,’ in Edith L. Bavin & Sabine Stoll (eds.), The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 107–131.Find this resource:

Bavin, Edith L. & Sabine Stoll (eds.). 2013. The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Beames, John. 1872–1879. A comparative grammar of the modern Aryan languages of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. [repub. 1966]Find this resource:

Beavers, John. 2011. ‘On affectedness.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335–370.Find this resource:

Beckman, Jill. 1998. ‘Positional faithfulness.’ PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Find this resource:

Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan L. Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John H. Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, & Tom Schoenemann. 2009. ‘Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper.’ Language Learning 59 (suppl. 1): 1–26.Find this resource:

Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2003. ‘Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects.’ In Romance Linguistics: Theory and acquisition, eds. A. T. Pérez-Leroux and Y. Roberge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 49–62.Find this resource:

Bell, Jeanie. 2003. ‘A sketch grammar of the Badjala language of Gari (Fraser Island).’ MA thesis, University of Melbourne.Find this resource:

Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. ‘Psych-verbs and theta-theory.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.Find this resource:

Bender, Marvin Lionel. 1996. The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A comparative essay. Munich: Lincom Europa.Find this resource:

Bentivoglio, Paola. 1994. ‘Spanish preferred argument structure across time and space.’ Revista de Documentaçao de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada (DELTA) 10: 227–293.Find this resource:

Bentivoglio, Paola. 1998. ‘The late acquisition of preferred argument structure in Venezuelan spoken Spanish,’ in Bernard Caron (ed.), Proceedings of the Xvith international congress of linguists. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Find this resource:

Bentzen, Kristine. 2006. ‘Order and structure in embedded clauses in Northern Norwegian.’ PhD dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Find this resource:

(p. 1149) Benua, Laura. 1995. ‘Yup’ik antipassive.’ Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from the Regional Meetings 31: 28–44.Find this resource:

Benveniste, Émile. 1952. ‘La construction passive du parfait transitif.’ Paris: C. Klincksieck.Find this resource:

Benveniste, Émile. 1952/1971. ‘The passive construction of the transitive perfect,’ in Émile Benveniste, Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 153–161.Find this resource:

Benz, Anton & Jason Mattausch (eds.). 2011. Bidirectional optimality theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Berge, Anna. 2011. Topic and discourse structure in West Greenlandic agreement constructions. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Find this resource:

Berger, Hermann. 1974. Das Yasin-Burushaski (Werchikwar). Grammatik, Texte, Wörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Find this resource:

Berinstein, Ava. 1985. Evidence for multiattachment in K’ekchi Mayan. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Berman, Ruth & Dan I. Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative, volume 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Berro, Ane. 2010. ‘Unergative predicates in Basque varieties: Consequences for ergative case assignment,’ in P. Salaburu, P. Goenaga, & I. Sarasola (eds.), DEA research work. Leioa: University of the Basque Country.Find this resource:

Berro, Ane. 2012. ‘Three levels of root insertion in Basque intransitive verbs,’ in E. Carrilho & B. Fernández (eds.), Journal of Portuguese Linguistics (special issue) 11(1): 7–22.Find this resource:

Berro, Ane. 2015. ‘Breaking verbs: From event structure to syntactic categories in Basque.’ PhD dissertation, UPV-EHU and Université de Bordeaux-Montaigne.Find this resource:

Berro, Ane. 2016. ‘On the relation between ergativity, stativity and the verbal configuration of Basque,’ in B. Fernández & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 39–66.Find this resource:

Beyssade, Claire & Jean-Marie Marandin. 2006. ‘The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee.’ Selected Papers of CSSP, 37–68.Find this resource:

Bhaskararao, Peri & K.V. Subbārāo. (eds.). 2004. Non-nominative subjects, vols. 1–2. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 1991. Grammatical relations: The evidence against their necessity and universality. London & New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. & M.S. Ningomba. 1997. Manipuri grammar (Lincom Studies in Asian Linguistics, 4). Munich: Lincom Europa.Find this resource:

Bhatia, Tej. 1993. Punjabi: A cognitive–descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. ‘Causativisation: Topics in the syntax of the modern Indo-Aryan languages.’ Unpublished handout.Find this resource:

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. ‘Long distance agreement in Hindi–Urdu.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807.Find this resource:

Bhatt, Rajesh & Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1996. ‘Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi,’ in Lise M. Dobrin, Kora Singer, & Lisa McNair (eds.), Papers from the main session of Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society, 32(1): 11–22.Find this resource:

Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. ‘The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley.’ Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123–140Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. ‘On the syntax of agreement in Tibeto-Burman.’ Studies in Language 24(3): 583–610.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. ‘Belhare,’ in Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages. New York: Routledge, 546–570.Find this resource:

(p. 1150) Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. ‘The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas,’ in Peri Bhaskararao & K.V. Subbārāo (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 77–111.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. ‘A refined sampling procedure for genealogical control.’ Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61: 221–233.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. ‘Grammatical Relations Typology,’ in J.J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 399–444.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2001. ‘Syntactic ergativity in light verb complements.’ Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 27: 39–52.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2009. ‘Case marking and alignment,’ in Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–43.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2008. ‘Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence.’ Scales 86: 1–37.Find this resource:

Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, & Taras Zakharko. 2015. ‘Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment,’ in Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej Malchukov, & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter, 7–45.Find this resource:

Bielmeier, Roland, Felix Haller, Katrin Hassler, Brigitte Huber, & Marianne Volkart. 2008. ‘A short guide to the comparative dictionary of Tibetan dialects (CTDT).’ MS, University of Bern.Find this resource:

Bierkandt, Lennart. 2006. ‘Kasusmorphologie des Diyari. Ein Ansatz im Rahmen der Distribuierten Morphologie,’ in G. Müller & J. Trommer (eds.), Subanalysis of argument encoding in distributed morphology, vol. 84 of Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. Universität Leipzig, 43–62.Find this resource:

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1967. ‘Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German,’ To honor Roman Jakobson. The Hague & Paris: Mouton, 239–270.Find this resource:

Binder, Jeffrey R., Julie A. Frost, Thomas A. Hammeke, Robert W. Cox, Stephen M. Rao, & Thomas Prieto. 1997. ‘Human brain language areas identified by functional magnetic resonance imaging.’ Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience 17(1): 353–362.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. & Gregory Ward. 1996. ‘A crosslinguistic study of postposing in discourse.’ Language and Speech 39: 111–140.Find this resource:

Birner, Betty J. & George Ward. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bittner, Dagmar, Wolfgang Dressler, & Marianne Kilani-Schoch (eds.). 2003. Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Bittner, Maria. 1987. ‘On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 53: 194–231.Find this resource:

Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope, and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Bittner, Maria & Ken Hale. 1996a. ‘The structural determination of case and agreement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.Find this resource:

Bittner, Maria & Kenneth Hale. 1996b. ‘Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531–604.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1976. ‘On ergativity and the notion of subject: Some Australian cases.’ Lingua 39: 281–300.Find this resource:

(p. 1151) Blake, Barry J. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1979a. A Kalkatungu grammar (Pacific Linguistics Series B-57). Canberra: Australian National University.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1979b. ‘Degrees of ergativity in Australia,’ in Franz Plank (ed.), Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London; New York: Academic Press, 291–305.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1979c. ‘Pitta-Pitta,’ in R.M.W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages. Volume 1. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 183–242.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1983. ‘Structure and word order in Kalkatungu: The anatomy of a flat language.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 3: 143–175.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1987a. ‘The grammatical development of Australian languages.’ Lingua 71: 179–210.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1987b. Australian Aboriginal grammar. London: Croom Helm.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1988. ‘Redefining Pama–Nyungan: Towards the prehistory of Australian languages.’ Aboriginal Linguistics 1: 1–90.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1990a. ‘Languages of the Queensland/Northern territory border: Updating the classification,’ in Peter Austin (ed.), Language and history: Essays in honour of Luise A. Hercus (Pacific Linguistics C-116). Canberra: Australian National University, 49–66.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1990b. Relational grammar. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Blevins, James P. 2005. ‘Thematic inversion in Georgian.’ MS, University of Cambridge.Find this resource:

Blight, Ralph. 2004. ‘Head movement, passive, and antipassive in English.’ PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Find this resource:

Bloch, Jules. 1906. ‘La phrase nominale en sanskrit.’ Mémoires de la Société Linguistique de Paris 14: 27–96.Find this resource:

Blom, Elma & Frank Wijnen. 2006. ‘Development need not be embarrassing: The demise of the root infinitive and related changes in Dutch child language.’ MS, University of Amsterdam/Utrecht University.Find this resource:

Blom, Elma. 2007. ‘Modality, infinitives, and finite bare verbs in Dutch and English child language.’ Language Acquisition 14(1): 75–113.Find this resource:

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Find this resource:

Blust, Robert. 1990. ‘Summary report: Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology in the Austronesian language family,’ in Philip Baldi (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 133–154.Find this resource:

Blust, Robert. 2002. ‘Notes on the history of “focus,” in Austronesian languages,’ in Fay Wouk & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The history and typology of Western Austronesian voice systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 63–78.Find this resource:

Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian languages (rev. edn.) Asia-Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Australia.Find this resource:

Blust, Robert & Stephen Trussel. 2010. Austronesian comparative dictionary (web edn.). http://www.trussel2.com/acd/introduction.htm

Blutner, Reinhard. 2000. ‘Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation.’ Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216.Find this resource:

Boas, Franz. 1911. ‘Tsimshian.’ Handbook of American Indian languages, vol. 40, pt. 1, 287–422.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993a. ‘On ergativity and ergative unergatives,’ in Collin Phillips (ed.), MIT working papers in linguistics 19: Papers on case and agreement II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 45–88.Find this resource:

(p. 1152) Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1993b. ‘Nominally absolutive is not absolutely nominative,’ Proceedings of the Eleventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. ‘Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2007. ‘The limits of deponency: A Chuktoko-centric perspective,’ in Matthew Baerman et al. (eds.), Deponency and morpho-syntactic mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175–201.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. ‘Where’s Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation,’ in Daniel Harbour, David Adger, & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–328.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Phil Branigan. 2006. ‘Eccentric agreement and multiple case-checking,’ in Alana Johns, Diane Massam, & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues. Springer: Dordrecht, 47–77.Find this resource:

Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Susi Wurmbrand. 2008. ‘Case in GB/minimalism,’ in A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford University Press, 44–58.Find this resource:

Boeder, Winfried. 1979. ‘Ergative syntax in language change: The South Caucasian languages,’ in Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press, 435–480.Find this resource:

Boeder, Winfried. 2002. ‘Syntax and morphology of polysynthesis in the Georgian verb,’ in Nicholas Evans & Hans-Jürgen Sasse (eds.), Problems of polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 87–111.Find this resource:

Boeder, Winfried (2004). ‘The South Caucasian languages.’ Lingua 115: 5–89.Find this resource:

Bogomolova, Natalja K. 2012. ‘Ličnoe soglasovanie v tabasaranskom jazyke. Konceptualizator i ego adresata v structure situacii.’ Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4: 101–124.Find this resource:

Bohnacker, Ute & Somayeh Mohammadi. 2012. ‘Acquiring Persian object marking: Balochi learners of L2 Persian.’ Orientalia Suecana 61: 59–89.Find this resource:

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2015. ‘A practical epistemology for semantic elicitation in the field and elsewhere,’ in Ryan Bochnak & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–46.Find this resource:

Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and agreement in Inuit. Berlin & New York: Foris.Find this resource:

Bolt, Janet E., William G. Hoddinott, & Frances M. Kofod. 1971. An elementary grammar of the Ngaliwuru language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Find this resource:

Bond, Oliver, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, & Dubi Nanda Dhakal. 2013a. ‘Optional case marking: What can be expressed by its absence?’ Presentation, 10th Biennial Association for Linguistic Typology Meeting, August, 15–18, MPI EVA Leipzig, Germany.Find this resource:

Bond, Oliver, Kristine A. Hildebrandt, & Dubi Nanda Dhakal. 2013b. ‘Probabilistic case in the languages of Manang.’ Paper presented at the Cambridge Group for Endangered Languages and Cultures, Cambridge, UK, December, 4.Find this resource:

Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. ‘Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Booth, James R., Lydia Wood, Dong Lu, James C. Houk, & Tali Bitan. 2007. ‘The role of the basal ganglia and cerebellum in language processing.’ Brain Research 1133: 136–144.Find this resource:

Bopp, Franz. 1847. Die Kaukasischen Glieder des indoeuropäischen Sprachstamms. Berlin: Dümmler.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit. 1994. ‘The projections of arguments,’ in Elena Benedicto & Jeff Runner (eds.), Functional projections. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, 19–47.Find this resource:

(p. 1153) Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Borik, Olga. 2002. ‘Aspect and reference time.’ PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Angela D. Friederici. 2007. ‘Neuroimaging studies of sentence and discourse comprehension,’ in M. Gaskell (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407–424.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2015. ‘Scales in real-time language comprehension: A review,’ in I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, A. L. Malchukov, & M. Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 321–352.Find this resource:

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Kamal Kumar Choudhary, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, & Balthasar Bickel. 2008. ‘Bridging the gap between processing preferences and typological distributions: Initial evidence from the online comprehension of control constructions in Hindi.’ Scales [= Ling. Arbeits Berichte 86], 397–436.Find this resource:

Borsley, Robert & Jaklin Kornfilt. 2000. ‘Mixed extended projection,’ in R. Borsley (ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories. London: Academic Press, 133–166.Find this resource:

Bošković, Zeljkǒ. 2005. ‘On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP.’ Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.Find this resource:

Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: NarrFind this resource:

Bossong, Georg. 1991. ‘Differential object marking in Romance and beyond,’ in D. Kibbee & D. Wanne (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 143–170.Find this resource:

Bottari, Piero. 1992. ‘Romance passive nominals.’ Geneva Generative Papers 0(0): 66–80.Find this resource:

Bowden, John. 2001. Taba: A description of a South Halmahera language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Bowerman, Melissa & Penelope Brown (eds.). 2008. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Bowern, Claire & Quentin Atkinson. 2012. ‘Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama–Nyungan.’ Language 88: 817–845.Find this resource:

Bowern, Claire & Harold Koch (eds.). 2004. Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 249). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bowers, John. 2013. Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Breen, J. Gavan. 1976. ‘Wangkumara,’ in Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 336–339.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare, & Christopher D. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 13–32.Find this resource:

Bresnan, Joan & Lioba Moshi. 1990. ‘Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax.’ Linguistic Inquiry 21: 147–85.Find this resource:

Bricker, Victoria R. 1981. ‘The source of the ergative split in Yucatec Maya.’ Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2(2): 83–127.Find this resource:

Brito, Célia Maria Coélho. 1996. A transitividade verbal na língua portuguesa: Uma investigaçao de base funcionalista. São Paulo: Araraquara.Find this resource:

(p. 1154) Brito, Célia Maria Coélho. 1998. ‘A transitividade verbal na língua portuguesa em diferentes tipos de gênero de texto.’ Veredas: Revista de Estudos Lingüísticos da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora 3(27–35).Find this resource:

Broadwell, Aaron. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Find this resource:

Bromley, H. Myron. 1981. A grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani. Pacific Linguistics, Series C-63. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Find this resource:

Brosset, Marie-Félicité. 1834. L’art libéral; ou, grammaire géorgienne. Paris: Roissy.Find this resource:

Brouwer, Harm, Hartmut Fitz, & John Hoeks. 2012. ‘Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension.’ Brain Research 1446: 127–143.Find this resource:

Brown, Dunstan & Andrew Hippisley. 2012. Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Brown, Jason. 2010. Gitksan phonotactics. Munich: Lincom.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope. 1998. ‘Early Tzeltal verbs: Argument structure and argument representation.’ Proceedings of the Annual Child Language Research Forum 29: 129–140.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope. 2008. ‘Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language,’ in Melissa Bowerman & Penelope Brown (eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 167–189.Find this resource:

Brown, Penelope, Barbara Pfeiler, Lourdes de León, & Clifton Pye. 2013. ‘The acquisition of agreement in four Mayan languages,’ in Edith L. Bavin & Sabine Stoll (eds.), The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 271–305.Find this resource:

Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:

Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. ‘On diagnostics of structural case and the nature of ergative case.’ MS, University of Delaware.Find this resource:

Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. ‘By-phrases in passives and nominals.’ Syntax 16: 1–41.Find this resource:

Bubenik, Vit. 1989. ‘On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages.’ Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 377–398.Find this resource:

Bubenik, Vit. 1996. The structure and development of middle Indo-Aryan dialects. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Find this resource:

Bubenik, Vit. 1998. Historical syntax of late middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramsa). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Burling, Robbins. 2003. ‘The Tibeto-Burman languages of northeastern India,’ in Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages. New York: Routledge, 167–192.Find this resource:

Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government–binding approach. Dordrecht & Lancaster: Reidel.Find this resource:

Buth, Randall. 1981. ‘Ergative word order: Luwo is OVS.’ Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages 1: 74–90.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 1993a. ‘Hindi–Urdu infinitives as NPs.’ South Asian Language Review 3(1): 51–72.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 1993b. ‘Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu,’ in K. Beals et al. (eds.), Papers from the main session of Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 29. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 89–103.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 1997. ‘Complex predicates in Urdu,’ in A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (eds.), Complex predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 107–149.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 2001. ‘A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan,’ in Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 105–141.Find this resource:

(p. 1155) Butt, Miriam. 2006a. ‘The dative–ergative connection,’ in O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6: 69–92.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 2006b. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam. 2008. ‘From spatial expression to core case marker: Ergative and dative/accusative.’ Handout for paper presented at Linguistics, RSPAS, Australian National University.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed. 2011. ‘The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective.’ Morphology 21(3): 545–572.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam, Tafseer Ahmed, & Tikaram Poudel. 2008. ‘Development of case in South Asian languages.’ Paper presented at DGfS Workshop Sprachwandelvergleich, Bamberg.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 1991. ‘Semantic case in Urdu,’ in L. Dobrin, L. Nichols, & R.M. Rodriguez (eds.), Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 31–45.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 2003. ‘Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions,’ in Ellen Brandner & Heike Zinmeister (eds.), New perspectives on case theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 53–87.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 2004. ‘The status of case,’ in Veneeta Dayal & Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 153–198.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 2007. ‘Urdu in a parallel grammar development environment.’ Language Resources and Evaluation 41: 191–207. Special Issue on Asian Language Processing: State of the Art Resources and Processing.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Aditi Lahiri. 2013. ‘Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs.’ Lingua 135: 7–29.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Tikaram Poudel. 2007. ‘Distribution of the ergative in Nepali.’ Talk held at the University of Leipzig. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/tafseer/leipzig07-hnd.pdf

Butt, Miriam & Gillian Ramchand. 2005. ‘Complex aspectual structure in Hindi/Urdu,’ in N. Ertischik-Shir & T. Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–153.Find this resource:

Butt, Miriam & Jafar Rizvi. 2010. ‘Tense and aspect in Urdu,’ in Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr & Brenda Laca (eds.), Layers of aspect. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 43–66.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan. 2000. ‘Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments,’ in M.D. Broe & Janet B. Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 250–268.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Find this resource:

Bynon, Theodora. 1979. ‘The ergative construction in Kurdish.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42: 211–224.Find this resource:

Bynon, Theodora. 1980. ‘From passive to active in Kurdish via the ergative construction,’ in Elisabeth Traugott, Rebecca Labrum, & Susan Shepherd (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 151–163.Find this resource:

Bynon, Theodora. 2005. ‘Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72.Find this resource:

(p. 1156) Çağlayan, Handan. 2014. Same home, different languages. Intergenerational language shift: Tendencies, limitations, opportunities. The case of Diyarbakır. Diyarbakır: DISA Publications.Find this resource:

Caha, Pavel. 2009. ‘The nanosyntax of case.’ PhD dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Find this resource:

Calabrese, Andrea. 2008. ‘On absolute and contextual syncretism: Remarks on the structure of case paradigms and how to derive them,’ in Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 156–202.Find this resource:

Campana, Mark. 1992. ‘A movement theory of ergativity.’ PhD dissertation, McGill University.Find this resource:

Campbell, Lyle. 2012. ‘Classification of the indigenous languages of South America,’ in Verónica Grondona & Lyle Campbell (eds.), The indigenous languages of South America: A comprehensive guide. Berlin: de Gruyter, 59–166Find this resource:

Capell, Arthur. 1962. Some linguistic types in Australia (Oceania linguistic monographs, 7). Sydney: University of Sydney.Find this resource:

Capell, Arthur. 1964. ‘Verbal systems in Philippine languages.’ Philippine Journal of Science 93: 231–249.Find this resource:

Caponigro, Ivano & Maria Polinsky. 2011. ‘Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax–semantics interface.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 71–122.Find this resource:

Cardinaletti, Anna & Ur Shlonsky. 2004. ‘Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian.’ Linguistic Inquiry 35(4): 519–557.Find this resource:

Cardona, George. 1970. ‘The Indo-Iranian construction Mana (Mama) Kriam.’ Language 46: 1–12.Find this resource:

Carreiras, Manuel, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia, Marta Vergara, Irene de la Cruz-Pavía, & Itziar Laka. 2010. ‘Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque.’ Cognition 115: 79–92.Find this resource:

Carrier, Julien. 2014. ‘Applicative in Inuktitut and transitivity.’ PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Carstens, Vicki. 2005. ‘Agree and EPP in Bantu.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 219–279.Find this resource:

Cartier, Alice. 1979. ‘De-voiced transitive verb sentences in formal Indonesian,’ Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press, 161–183.Find this resource:

Catford, John C. 1974. ‘Ergativity in Caucasian languages.’ MS, University of Michigan.Find this resource:

Cena, Resty. 1979. ‘Tagalog counterexamples to the accessibility hierarchy.’ Studies in Philippine Linguistics 31: 119–124.Find this resource:

Cerin, Mark. 1994. ‘The pronominal system of Yaralde.’ BA (hons.) thesis, University of Melbourne.Find this resource:

Chadwick, Neil. 1976. ‘Ergative, Locative, and Instrumental Case Inflections: The Western Barkly languages,’ in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 390–396.Find this resource:

Chadwick, Neil. 1984. The relationship of Jingulu and Jaminjungan. Batchelor, NT: School of Australian Linguistics.Find this resource:

Chadwick, Neil. 1997. ‘The Barkly and Jaminjung languages: a non-contiguous genetic grouping’, in T. Darrell T. and M. Walsh (eds.), Boundary rider: Studies in the lexicology and comparative linguistics of Australian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 95–106.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace. 1976. ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view,’ in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 25–56.Find this resource:

Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Find this resource:

Chang, Henry Yung-li. 2010. ‘On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb constructions,’ in Raphael Mercado, Eric Potsdam, & Lisa Travis (eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 183–211.Find this resource:

(p. 1157) Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1926. The origin and development of the Bengali language, vol. 2. Calcutta: Mehra, Rupa. [1975 edn.]Find this resource:

Chelliah, Shobhana. 1997. A grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Chelliah, Shobhana. 2009. ‘Semantic role to new information in Meithei,’ in Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 377–400.Find this resource:

Chelliah, Shobhana. 2016. ‘ “Responsive methodology”: Perspectives on data gathering and language documentation for South Asia.’ Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, vol. 3, 175–198.Find this resource:

Chelliah, Shobhana & Gwendolyn Hyslop. 2011. ‘Introduction to special issue on optional case marking in Tibeto-Burman.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 1–7.Find this resource:

Chelliah, Shobhana & Gwendolyn Hyslop (eds.). 2011/2012. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2) & 35(1) (special issue on optional case marking, pts. I & II).Find this resource:

Chen, Cheng-Fu. 2008. ‘Aspect and tense in Rukai: Interpretation and interaction.’ PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Find this resource:

Chen, Tingchun. 2010. ‘Restructuring in Mayrinax Atayal.’ BA (hons.) thesis, McGill University.Find this resource:

Chen, Tingchun. 2014. ‘Restructuring in Atayal.’ MS, MIT.Find this resource:

Chen, Lang, Hua Shu, Youyi Liu, Jingjing Zhao, & Ping Li. 2007. ‘ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning.’ Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(2): 161.Find this resource:

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. ‘A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences.’ In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford University Press, 22–59.Find this resource:

Chikobava, Arnold. 1936. Č’anuris gramat’ik’uli analizi t’ekst’ebiturt [‘A grammatical analysis of Laz, with texts’]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Find this resource:

Chikobava, Arnold. 1948. Ergat’iuli k’onst’rukciis p’roblema iberiul-k’avk’asiur enebši, I [‘The problem of the ergative construction in the Ibero-Caucasian languages, I’]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Find this resource:

Chikobava, Arnold. 1965. Iberiul-k’avk’asiur enata šesc’avlis ist’oria [‘The history of the study of the Ibero-Caucasian languages’]. Tbilisi: Ganatleba.Find this resource:

Chirkova, Katia. 2012. ‘The Qiangic subgroup from an areal perspective: A case study of languages of Muli.’ Language and Linguistics 13(1): 133–170.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. ‘Remarks on nominalization,’ in R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 184–221.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. ‘On binding.’ Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Foris.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. ‘A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory,’ in Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework,’ in Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase,’ in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22.Find this resource:

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. ‘On phases,’ in Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of J.-R. Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.Find this resource:

(p. 1158) Chomsky, Noam. 2013. ‘Problems of projection.’ Lingua 130: 33–49.Find this resource:

Choudhary, Kamal Kumar, Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2009. ‘The N400 as a correlate of interpretively relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi.’ Neuropsychologia 47(13), 3012–3022.Find this resource:

Christianson, Kiel & Fernanda Ferreira. 2005. ‘Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa).’ Cognition 28: 105–135.Find this resource:

Chubinov, David Jesseevich. 1855. Kratkaja gruzinskaja grammatika. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja Akademia Nauk.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra. 1976. ‘On the subject of two passives in Indonesian,’ in Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 57–98.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra. 1982. ‘Unbounded Dependencies in Chamorro Grammar.’ Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 39–77.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra. 1994. ‘Wh-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro.’ Linguistic Inquiry 25: 1–44.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago, IL, & London: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Chung, Sandra. 2008. ‘Indonesian clause structure from an Austronesian perspective.’ Lingua 118: 1554–1582.Find this resource:

Churchward, Clerk Maxwell. 1940. Rotuman grammar and dictionary. Sydney: Australasian Medical Publishing.Find this resource:

Churchward, Clerk Maxwell. 1953. Tongan grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1980. ‘On extraction from NP in Italian.’ Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 47–99.Find this resource:

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Clahsen, Harald, Fraibet Aveledo, & Iggy Roca. 2002. ‘The development of regular and irregular verb inflection in Spanish child language.’ Journal of Child Language 29: 591–622.Find this resource:

Clahsen, Harald. 1999. ‘Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 991–1013.Find this resource:

Clancy, Patricia M. 1993. ‘Preferred argument structure in Korean acquisition,’ in Eve V. Clark (ed.), The proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 307–314.Find this resource:

Clancy, Patricia M. 1995. ‘Subject and object in Korean acquisition: Surface expression and casemarking,’ in Susumo Kuno, Ik-Hwan Lee, John Whitman, Joan Maling, Young-Se Kang, & Young-joo Kim (eds.), Harvard studies in Korean linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 3–17.Find this resource:

Clancy, Patricia M. 1996. ‘Referential strategies and the co-construction of argument structure in Korean acquisition,’ in Barbara A. Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 33–68.Find this resource:

Clancy, Patricia M. 1997. ‘Discourse motivations of referential choice in Korean acquisition,’ in Ho-min Sohn & John Haig (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 639–659.Find this resource:

Clancy, Patricia M. 2003. ‘The lexicon in interaction: Developmental origins of preferred argument structure,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 81–108.Find this resource:

(p. 1159) Clark, Herbert & Susan Brennan. 1991. ‘Grounding in communication.’ Perspectives on socially shared cognition 13: 127–149.Find this resource:

Clark, Ross. 1973. ‘Transitivity and case in Eastern Oceanic languages.’ Oceanic Linguistics 12: 559–605.Find this resource:

Clark, Ross. 1976. Aspects of Proto-Polynesian syntax. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Find this resource:

Clarke, Sarah. 2009. ‘The manifestation of viewpoint aspect in Inuktitut.’ Studia Linguistica 63: 292–322.Find this resource:

Clemens, Lauren Eby. 2014. ‘Prosodic noun incorporation and verb-initial syntax.’ PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Find this resource:

Clemens, Lauren Eby, Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Adam Milton Morgan, Maria Polinsky, Gabrielle Tandet, & Matthew Wagers. 2015. ‘Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33, 2: 417–467.Find this resource:

Cleverly, John Robert. 1968. A preliminary study of the phonology and grammar of Djamindjung. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Find this resource:

Clynes, Adrian. 1995. ‘Topics in the phonology and morphosyntax of Balinese—based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali.’ PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Find this resource:

Cocchi, Gloria. 1999. ‘Nominative and ergative languages: Towards a unified account of case checking.’ Syntaxis 2: 103–129.Find this resource:

Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Colarusso, John (1992). A grammar of the Kabardian language. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Find this resource:

Cole, Peter & Gabriella Hermon. 1994. ‘Is there LF wh-movement?’ Linguistic Inquiry 2: 219–262.Find this resource:

Cole, Peter & Gabriella Hermon. 1998. ‘The typology of wh movement: Wh questions in Malay.’ Syntax 1: 221–258.Find this resource:

Cole, Peter & Gabriella Hermon. 2005. ‘Subject and non-subject relativization in Indonesian.’ Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14: 59–88.Find this resource:

Cole, Peter & Gabriella Hermon. 2008. ‘VP Raising in a VOS language.’ Syntax 11(2): 144–197.Find this resource:

Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon, & Yanti. 2008. ‘Voice in Malay/Indonesian.’ Lingua 118: 1500–1553.Find this resource:

Collins, Chris. 2002. ‘The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach.’ Lingua 112: 127–133.Find this resource:

Collins, Chris. 2003. ‘The internal structure of vP in Ju’hoansi and Hoan.’ Studia Linguistica 57: 1–25.Find this resource:

Collins, Chris. 2005. ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English.’ Syntax 8(2): 81–120.Find this resource:

Compton, Richard. 2012. ‘The syntax and semantics of modification in Inuktitut: Adjectives and adverbs in a Polysynthetic language.’ PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Compton, Richard. 2014. ‘An argument for genuine object agreement in Inuit.’ A talk presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, Brock University, St. Catharines, May 24–26.Find this resource:

Compton, Richard & Christine Pittman. 2010. ‘Word-formation by phase in Inuit.’ Lingua 120: 2167–2192.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard 1975. ‘Antiergative,’ in R.E. Grossman, L.J. San, & T.J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the 11th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 112–121.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1978. ‘Ergativity,’ in Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas Press, 329–394.Find this resource:

(p. 1160) Comrie, Bernard. 1979. ‘Degrees of ergativity: Some Chukchee evidence,’ in Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press, 219–240.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1980. ‘Inverse verb forms in Siberia: Evidence from Chukchee, Koryak, and Kamchadal.’ Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 61–74.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1981a. ‘Ergativity and grammatical relations in Kalaw Lagaw Ya (Saibai Dialect).’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 1–42.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1981b. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1984. ‘Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages.’ Linguistics 22: 857–864.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. ‘Reflections on subject and object control.’ Journal of Semantics 4: 47–65.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1988a. ‘Passive and voice,’ in M. Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice (Typological studies in language), vol. 16. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 9–23.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1988b. ‘Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects,’ Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting: General session and parassession on grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 265–279.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 2000. ‘Valency-changing derivations in Tsez,’ in R.M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 30–83.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 2004. ‘Oblique–case subjects in Tsez,’ in Peri Bhaskararao & Kareumuri Venkata Subbārāo. (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 113–128.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 2005. ‘Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases,’ in Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil, & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 398–403.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 2013a. ‘Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases,’ in Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 2013b. ‘Alignment of case marking of pronouns,’ in Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard. 2013c. ‘Ergativity: Some recurrent themes,’ in E. Bavin & S. Stolle (eds.), The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 15–33Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard & Helma van den Berg. 2006. ‘Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages,’ in Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie, & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter, 127–154.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard & Edward L. Keenan. 1979. ‘Noun phrase accessibility revisited.’ Language 649–664.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard & Zaira Khalilova. 2013. ‘The antipassive alternation in Bezhta.’ Talk presented at workshop Valency classes in the world’s languages, MPI EVA Leipzig, August 14–15.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard, Diana Forker, & Zaira Khalilova. 2011. ‘Alignment typology, reflexives, and reciprocals in Tsezic languages.’ Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 37: 32–51.Find this resource:

(p. 1161) Comrie, Bernard, Diana Forker, & Zaira Khalilova. 2012. ‘Adverbial clauses in the Tsezic languages,’ in Holger Diessel & Volker Gast (eds.), Clause linkage in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter, 157–190Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard, Diana Forker, & Zaira Khalilova. in press. ‘Affective constructions in Tsezic languages,’ in Jóhanna Barðdal, Stephen Mark Carey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, & Na’ama Pat-El (eds.), Non-canonically case-marked subjects within and across languages and language families: The Reykjavík–Eyjafjallajökull papers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Comrie, Bernard, Madzhid Khalilov, & Zaira Khalilova. 2015. ‘Valency and valency classes in Bezhta,’ in Bernard Comrie & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 541–570.Find this resource:

Condoravdi, Cleo & Ashwini Deo. 2014. ‘Aspect shifts in Indo-Aryan and trajectories of semantic change,’ in Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger, & Doris Penka (eds.), Language change at the syntax–semantics interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 261–292.Find this resource:

Cook, Claire. 2008. ‘The syntax and semantics of clause-typing in Plains Cree.’ PhD dissertation, UBC.Find this resource:

Cook, Kenneth W. 1991. ‘The search for subject in Samoan,’ in Robert Blust (ed.), Current in Pacific linguistics: Papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honor of George W. Grace. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 77–98.Find this resource:

Cook, Conor & Alana Johns. 2009. ‘Determining the semantics of Inuktitut postbases,’ in M.-A. Mahieu & N. Tersis (eds.), Variations on polysynthesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, pp. 149–170.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica. 2010a. ‘Rethinking split-ergativity in Chol.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 76(2): 207–53.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica. 2010b. ‘Complementation in Chol (Mayan): A theory of split ergativity.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica. 2012. ‘Split ergativity and transitivity in Chol.’ Lingua 122: 241–256.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica. 2013a. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica. 2013b. ‘TAM split ergativity’ (pts. 1–2). Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 171–200.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica. 2014. ‘Predication, tenselessness, and what it takes to be a verb,’ in Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole, & Amanda Rysling (eds.), NELS 43: Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society 77–90.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica & Maayan Adar. 2013. ‘Ergativity,’ in Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford bibliographies in linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica & Andrés Pablo Salanova. 2009. ‘Nominalization and predicate fronting: Two sources of ergativity,’ in Laurel MacKensie (ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 45–54.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro, & Omer Preminger. 2014. ‘The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan.’ Linguistic Variation 14: 179–242.Find this resource:

Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2012. ‘Taking ergativity out of split ergativity: A unified account of aspect and person splits.’ MS, McGill University, Syracuse University.Find this resource:

Cooreman, Anne. 1988. ‘The antipassive in Chamorro: Variations on the theme of transitivity,’ in Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 561–593.Find this resource:

Cooreman, Ann. 1994. ‘A functional typology of antipassives,’ in B. Fox & P.J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 49–88.Find this resource:

(p. 1162) Cooreman, Ann, Barbara A. Fox, & Talmy Givó́n. 1984. ‘The discourse definition of ergativity.’ Studies in Language 8: 1–34.Find this resource:

Corbett, Greville. 2005. ‘The canonical approach in typology,’ in Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. Rood (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 25–49.Find this resource:

Corbett, Greville B. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Corbett, Greville & Sebastian Fedden. 2014. ‘Multiple categorization: The case of Mian.’ MS, Surrey Morphology Group.Find this resource:

Corston, Simon H. 1996. Ergativity in Roviana, Solomon Islands. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Corston-Oliver, Simon H. 2003. ‘Core arguments and the inversion of the nominal hierarchy,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 273–300.Find this resource:

Coulson, Seana, Jonathan W. King, & Marta Kutas. 1998. ‘Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 13(1): 21–58.Find this resource:

Coupe, Alexander R. 2008. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Coupe, Alexander R. 2011a. ‘On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland.’ Linguistics in the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 21–47.Find this resource:

Coupe, Alexander R. 2011b. ‘Pragmatic foundations of transitivity in Ao.’ Studies in Language 35(3): 492–522.Find this resource:

Cowper, Elizabeth. 1987. ‘What is a Subject? Non-nominative Subjects in Icelandic,’ in J. Blevins & J. Carter (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 18. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 94–108.Find this resource:

Coyos, Jean-Baptiste. 1999. Le parler basque souletin des Arbailles. Une approche de l’ergativité. Paris: L’Harmattan.Find this resource:

Craig, Colette. 1977. A grammar of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Find this resource:

Craig, Colette. 1979. ‘The antipassive and Jacaltec,’ in Laura Martin (ed.), Papers in Mayan linguistics. Colombia, MO: Lucas, 139–165.Find this resource:

Creider, Chet. 1978. The syntax of relative clauses in Inuktitut. Inuit Studies 2, 95–110.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis. 2000. ‘Typology,’ in: Heine and Nurse (eds.), African languages: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 231–258.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis. 2008. ‘Person variations in Akhvakh verb morphology: Functional motivation and origin of an uncommon pattern.’ Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61: 309–325.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis. 2010. ‘Specialized converbs and adverbial subordination in Axaxdərə Akhvakh,’ in Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 105–142.Find this resource:

Creissels, Denis. 2014. ‘P-lability and radical P-alignment.’ Linguistics 52: 911–944.Find this resource:

Crisp, Simon. 1983. ‘Subject marking in some languages of Daghestan.’ Linguistics 16: 203–216.Find this resource:

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2014. ‘Competing motivation models and diachrony: What evidence for what motivation?’ in Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov, & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Croft, William. 1998. ‘The structure of events and the structure of language,’ in Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ & London: Erlbaum.Find this resource:

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 1163) Cumming, Susanna & Fay Wouk. 1987. ‘Is there “discourse ergativity,” in Austronesian languages?’ Lingua 71: 271–296.Find this resource:

Cummings, Thomas & Thomas G. Bailey. 1912. Panjabi Manual and grammar: A guide to the colloquial Panjabi of the Northern Panjab. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.Find this resource:

Custis, Tonya. 2004. ‘Word order variation in Tongan: A syntactic analysis.’ PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Find this resource:

Dahl, Östen. 2000. ‘Egophoricity in discourse and syntax.’ Functions of Language 7(1): 33–77.Find this resource:

Dahlstrom, Amy. 1983. ‘Agent–patient languages and split case marking systems,’ in Amy Dahlstrom et al. (eds.), Proceeding of the ninth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 37–46.Find this resource:

D’Alessandro, Roberta & Ian Roberts. 2010. ‘Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 41–72.Find this resource:

Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Daniel, Michael. 2013. ‘Issues in Khinalugh syntax: Building on corpus evidence,’ Working papers humanities, Higher School of Economics, Moscow.Find this resource:

Daniel, Michael & Dmitry Ganenkov. 2009. ‘Case marking in Daghestanian: Limits of elaboration,’ in Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–685.Find this resource:

Daniel, Michael & Yuri Lander. 2010. ‘A girl of word, meat of a ram, and a life of longing: On peculiar cases of relativization in East Caucasian languages.’ Paper presented at Syntax of the World’s Languages IV, Lyon.Find this resource:

Daniel, Michael & Yury Lander. 2011. ‘The Caucasian languages,’ in Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe: A comprehensive guide. Berlin: de Gruyter, 125–158.Find this resource:

Daniel, Michael, Timur Maisak, & Solmaz Merdanova. 2012. ‘Causatives in Agul,’ in Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie, & Valery Solovyev (eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations: A crosslinguistic typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 55–113.Find this resource:

Davidiak, Elena & John Grinstead. 2004. ‘Root non-finite forms in child Spanish.’ Poster presented at Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition.Find this resource:

Davies, William D. 1984. ‘Antipassive: Choctaw evidence for a universal characterization,’ in David Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar, vol. 2. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 331–376.Find this resource:

Davies, William D. 1986. Choctaw verb agreement and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

Davies, William D. & Stanley Dubinsky. 2003. ‘On extraction from NPs.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 1–37.Find this resource:

Davis, Henry & Jason Brown. 2011. ‘On A’-dependencies in Gitksan,’ in John Lyon & Joel Dunham (eds.), Proceedings of the 46th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages. Vancouver: UBCWPL, 43–80.Find this resource:

Davis, Henry & Clarissa Forbes. 2015. ‘Connect four! The morphosyntax of argument marking in Tsimshianic,’ in Zoe Lam Natalie Weber, Erin Guntly, & Sihwei Chen (eds.), Proceedings of the 50th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages, vol. 40. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics, 154–185.Find this resource:

Davis, Henry & Hamida Demirdache. 2000. ‘On lexical verb meanings: evidence from Salish,’ in Carol Tenny & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 100 (CSLI Lecture Notes). Stanford, CA: CSLI, 97–142.Find this resource:

(p. 1164) Davison, Alice. 1985. ‘Case and control in Hindi–Urdu.’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 15(2): 9–23.Find this resource:

Davison, Alice. 1988. ‘Constituent structure and the realization of agreement features,’ in Lynn Macleod, Gary Larson, & Diane Brentari (eds.), Papers from the 24th regional meeting of the Chicagon Linguistics Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 41–53.Find this resource:

Davison, Alice. 1999. ‘Ergativity,’ in Edith Moravcsik & Michael Noonan (eds.), Proceedings of the symposium on formalism and functionalism. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 177–210.Find this resource:

Davison, Alice. 2004a. ‘Non-nominative subjects in Hindi–Urdu: VP structure and case parameters,’ in Peri Bhaskararao & K.V. Subbārāo (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 71–98.Find this resource:

Davison, Alice. 2004b. ‘Structural case, lexical case and the verbal projection,’ in Veneeta Dayal & Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 199–225.Find this resource:

Davison, Alice. 2010. ‘Dependent structural case and the role of functional projections,’ in R.M.Q. Rapaksha et al. (eds.), Dakkhina: Essays in honor of James Gair. Colombo: Godage, 183–206Find this resource:

Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. ‘Bare nominals: Non-specific and contrastive readings under scrambling,’ in Simin Karimi (ed.), Word order and scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell, 67–90.Find this resource:

Dayal, Veneeta. 2011. ‘Hindi Pseudo-incorporation.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 123–167.Find this resource:

Dayley, Jon P. 1981. ‘Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages.’ Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 3–82.Find this resource:

Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tz’utujil grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Find this resource:

De Guzman, Videa P. 1976. ‘Syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs.’ PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i.Find this resource:

De Guzman, Videa P. 1988. ‘Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis,’ in Richard McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian linguistics. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies, 323–345.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen. 1996. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen. 1999. ‘Optimal case assignment.’ Linguistics in the Netherlands 16(1): 97–109.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen. 2009. ‘Case in optimality theory,’ The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 88–101.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart (eds.). 2008. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart. 2009. ‘Cross-linguistic variation in differential subject marking,’ in H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–16.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen & Monique Lamers. 2006. ‘Incremental distinguishability of subject and object,’ in L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, & P. de Swart (eds.), Case, valency, and transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 269–287.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov. 2007. ‘On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach.’ Lingua 117: 1636–1656.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov. 2008. ‘Case-marking strategies.’ Linguistic Inquiry 39: 565–587.Find this resource:

de Hoop, Helen & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2005. ‘Differential case-marking in Hindi,’ in M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case. Oxford: Elsevier, 321–345.Find this resource:

(p. 1165) de León, Lourdes. 1999. ‘Verbs in Tzotzil (Mayan) early syntactic development.’ International Journal of Bilingualism 3(2–3): 219–239.Find this resource:

de Oliveira, Christiane Cunha. 2005. ‘The language of the Apinajé people of Central Brazil.’ PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Find this resource:

de Rijk, Rudolf. 1981. ‘Euskal morfologiaren zenbait gorabehera,’ Euskal Linguistika eta Literatura: Bide Berriak. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto/Deustuko Unibertsitatea, 83–101.Find this resource:

de Rijk, Rudolf. 2007. Standard Basque: A progressive grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

de Smet, Hendrick. 2015. ‘How gradual change progresses.’ Paper presented at GLIMS [Ghent Research Team on Linguistic Meaning and Structure] Lecture Series. University of Ghent.Find this resource:

de Swart, Peter. 2007. ‘Cross-linguistic variation in object marking.’ PhD thesis, Radboud University.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose. 2010a. ‘Ergative case and the transitive subject: A view from Nez Perce.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 73–120.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose 2010b. ‘Topics in the Nez Perce verb.’ PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. ‘Possessor raising.’ Linguistic Inquiry 44: 391–432.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose. 2014. ‘Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic.’ MS, University of California, Santa Cruz.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. ‘Ergativity,’ in Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax—Theory and analysis: An international handbook, vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 654–707.Find this resource:

Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. ‘Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic,’ Journal of Linguistics 52:3.Find this resource:

Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 2007. ‘The evidential base.’ Paper presented at NELS 38.Find this resource:

Déchaine, Rose-Marie, Claire Cook, Jeff Muehlbauer, & Ryan Waldie. 2014. ‘(De-)constructing evidentiality.’ MS, UBC.Find this resource:

Déchaine, Rose-Marie, & Martina Wiltschko. 2002. ‘Decomposing pronouns.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–422.Find this resource:

Dediu, Dan, Michael Cysouw, Stephen C. Levinson, Andrea Baronchelli, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nicholas Evans, Simon Garrod, Russell D. Gray, Anne Kandler, & Elena Lieven. 2013. ‘Cultural evolution of language,’ in Peter J. Richerson & Morten H. Christiansen (eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Deeters, Gerhard. 1930. Das kharthwelische Verbum: vergleichende Darstellung des Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert und PettersFind this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’. Language 57: 626–657.Find this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 1984a. ‘Transitivity and ergative case in Lhasa Tibetan.’ Proceedings of the tenth meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society. Berkley: Berkley Linguistics Society, 131–140.Find this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 1984b. ‘Etymological notes on Tibeto-Burman case particles.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 8(1): 59–77.Find this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 1990. ‘Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan.’ Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 289–321.Find this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 1991. ‘Event construal and case role assignment.’ Berkeley Linguistic Society 17: 338–353.Find this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 2006. ‘The blue bird of ergativity.’ Unpublished MS.Find this resource:

DeLancey, Scott. 2011. ‘ “Optional” “ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman Languages.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 9–20.Find this resource:

(p. 1166) Delforooz, Behrooz Barjasteh. 2010. Discourse features in Balochi of Sistan (oral narratives). Uppsala: Studia Iranica Upsaliensa.Find this resource:

Demiral, Seyfettin B., Matthias Schlesewsky, & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. ‘On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish.’ Cognition 106(1): 484–500.Find this resource:

Demirdache, Hamida & Miryam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. ‘The primitives of temporal relations,’ in Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 157–186.Find this resource:

den Besten, Hans. 1981. Some remarks on the ergative hypothesis [mimeographed]. University of Amsterdam.Find this resource:

Dench, Alan. 1982. ‘The development of an accusative case marking pattern in the Ngayarda languages of Western Australia.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 43–59.Find this resource:

Dench, Alan. 1991. ‘Panyjima,’ in R.M.W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–243.Find this resource:

Dench, Alan. 2006. ‘Case marking strategies in subordinate clauses in Pilbara languages—Some diachronic speculations.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 26: 81–105.Find this resource:

Dench, Alan & Nicholas Evans. 1988. ‘Multiple case-marking in Australian languages.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 1–47.Find this resource:

Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Deo, Ashwini. 2012. ‘The imperfective–perfective contrast in Middle Indic.’ Journal of South Asian Linguistics 5: 3–33Find this resource:

Deo, Ashwini & Sharma, Devyani. 2006. ‘Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages.’ Linguistic Typology 10(3): 369–418.Find this resource:

Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. ‘On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1–19.Find this resource:

Devi, Jayantimala. 1986. ‘Ergativity: A historical analysis in Assamese.’ PhD dissertation, University of Delhi.Find this resource:

DeWolf, Charles M. 1988. ‘Voice in Austronesian languages of the Philippine type: Passive, ergative, or neither?’ in Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice (vol. 16 of Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 143–193.Find this resource:

Díaz, Begoña, Núria Sebastián-Gallés, Kepa Erdocia, Jutta L. Mueller, & Itziar Laka. 2011. ‘On the cross-linguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violation in Basque.’ Journal of Neurolinguistics 24(3): 357–373.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly. 1996. ‘Semantic variables and object shift,’ in Höskuldur Thráinsson, Samuel D. Epstein, & Steve Peter (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 66–84.Find this resource:

Diesing, Molly. 1997. ‘Yiddish VP order and typology of object movement in Germanic.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 369–427.Find this resource:

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Dillon, Brian, Andrew Nevins, Alison C. Austin, & Colin Phillips. 2012. ‘Syntactic and semantic predictors of tense in Hindi: An ERP investigation.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 27(3): 313–344.Find this resource:

Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2009. ‘Tima,’ in Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (ed.), Coding participant marking: Construction types in twelve African languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 331–353.Find this resource:

(p. 1167) Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2010a. ‘Differential object marking in Nilo-Saharan.’ Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31: 13–46.Find this resource:

Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2010b. ‘On the origin of ergativity in Tima,’ in Frank Floricic (ed.), Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale, Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels. Paris: Presses Universitaires de l’École Normale Superieure, 233–239.Find this resource:

Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2014. ‘Marked nominative systems in eastern Sudanic and their historical origin.’ Afrikanistik Online 2014.Find this resource:

Dirr, Adolf. 1912. ‘Rutulskij jazyk. Sbornik materialov dlja opisanija plemen Kavkaza,’ Tbilisi, 42(3): 1–204.Find this resource:

Dirr, Adolf. 1928. Einführung in das Studium der kaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of north Queensland (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. (ed.) 1976. Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1977. A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979. ‘Ergativity.’ Language 55: 59–138.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1980. The languages of Australia (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. (ed.), 1987. Studies in ergativity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1997. The rise and fall of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 2002. Australian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, Robert M.W. 2010. A grammar of Yidiɲ. (Digital re-edition of Dixon (1977). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Dobrushina, Nina. 2001. ‘Formy imperativnoj serii,’ in Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 319–332.Find this resource:

Dočekal, Mojmír & Dalina Kallulli. 2012. ‘More on the semantics of clitic doubling: Principal filters, minimal witnesses, and other bits of truth,’ in Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 9. CSSP CNRS, 113–128.Find this resource:

Doliana, Aaron. 2013. ‘The super-strong person–case constraint: Scarcity of resources by scale-driven impoverishment,’ Rule interaction in grammar, vol. 90 of Linguistische Arbeits Berichte. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig, 177–202.Find this resource:

Donaldson, Tamsin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Donohue, Cathryn. 1999. Optimizing fore case and word order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Find this resource:

Donohue, Cathryn & Mark Donohue. 2010. ‘The case of possessors and “subjects,” ’ in Raphael Mercado, Eric Potsdam, & Lisa Travis (eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 103–116.Find this resource:

Donohue, Mark. 1996. ‘Bajau: A symmetrical Austronesian language.’ Language 72: 782–793.Find this resource:

Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Donohue, Mark. 2008. ‘Semantic alignment: What’s what and what’s not,’ in Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. Typology of languages with semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 1988. Tukilik: An Inuktitut grammar for all. Quebec: Association Inuksiutiit Katimajiit.Find this resource:

(p. 1168) Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2003. Inuit Uqausiqatigiit—Inuit languages and dialects (2nd edn.). Iqaluit, Nunavut: Nunavut: Nunavut Arctic CollegeFind this resource:

Dorleijn, Margreet. 1996. The decay of ergativity in Kurdish: Language internal or contact induced? Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Find this resource:

Doron, Edit & Geoffrey Khan. 2012. ‘The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo- Aramaic.’ Lingua 122: 225–240Find this resource:

Dourado, Luciana. 2001. ‘Aspectos morfossintáticos da língua Panará (Jê).’ PhD dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas.Find this resource:

Dowty, David. 1991. ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.’ Language 67: 547–619.Find this resource:

Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbsand times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Sitzungsberichte, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Phil.-hist. Klasse) Band 259, Abh 1.Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang. 2005. ‘Morphological typology and first language acquisition: Some mutual challenges,’ in Geert Booij, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi, & Sergio Scalise (eds.), Morphology and linguistic typology. On-line proceedings of the fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4).Find this resource:

Dressler, Wolfgang & Annemarie Karpf. 1995. ‘The theoretical relevance of pre- and protomorphology in language acquisition.’ Yearbook of Morphology 1994: 99–122.Find this resource:

Drossard, Werner. 1991. ‘Kasusmarkierung und die Zentralität von Partizipanten,’ in H. Seiler & W. Premper (eds.), Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. Tübingen: Narr, 447–480.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. ‘Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative.’ Language 62(4): 808–845.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. ‘On the six-way word order typology.’ Studies in Language 21(1): 69–103.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013a. ‘Determining dominant word order,’ in Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. 2013b. ‘Order of subject and verb,’ in Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Find this resource:

Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath. (eds.) 2013. Wals online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info

Du Bois, John W. 1980. ‘The search for a cultural niche: Showing the Pear film in a Mayan community,’ in Wallace L. Chafe (ed.), The Pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–7.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 1981. ‘The Sacapultec language.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 1985. ‘Competing motivations,’ in John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 343–365.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 1987a. ‘Absolutive zero: Paradigm adaptivity in Sacapultec Maya.’ Lingua 71: 203–222.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 1987b. ‘The discourse basis of ergativity.’ Language 63: 805–855.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 2003a. ‘Argument structure: Grammar in use,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 11–60.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John. W. 2003b. ‘Discourse and grammar,’ in Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ, & London: Erlbaum, 47–87.Find this resource:

(p. 1169) Du Bois, John W. 2006. ‘The Pear story in Sakapultek Maya: A case study of information flow and preferred argument structure,’ in Mercedes Sedano, Adriana Bolívar, & Martha Shiro (eds.), Haciendo Lingüística: Homenaje a Paola Bentivoglio. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 189–220.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 2014a. ‘Motivating competitions,’ in Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov, & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263–281.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. 2014b. Representing discourse. Santa Barbara, CA: Linguistics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.). 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W. & Nicholas Lester [in progress]. ‘Cognitive containment and construction design: Grammaticizing the three-place predicate.’Find this resource:

Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, & Danae Paolino 1993. ‘Outline of discourse transcription,’ in Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 45–89.Find this resource:

Dukes, Michael. 1996. ‘On the nonexistence of anaphors and pronominals in Tongan.’ PhD dissertation, UCLA.Find this resource:

Duñabeitia, Jon Andoni, Manuel Perea, & Manuel Carreiras. 2007. ‘Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a morpheme level? Evidence for morpho-orthographic decomposition.’ Cognition 105: 691–703.Find this resource:

Dunn, John A. 1979a. A reference grammar for the Coast Tsimshian language. Canadian Ethnology Service, Mercury Series Paper No. 55. Ottawa: National Museum of Man.Find this resource:

Dunn, John A. 1979b. ‘Tsimshian connectives.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 45: 131–140.Find this resource:

Dunn, John A. 1990. ‘The government of oblique/local grammatical relations in lower Tsimshian.’ Handout from a paper presented at Conference on American Indigenous Languages, New Orleans.Find this resource:

Dunn, Michael John. 1999. ‘A grammar of Chukchi.’ PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro. 2004. ‘Agency in language,’ in Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, 451–473.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro & Elinor Ochs. 1989. ‘Acquisition of genitive agents in Samoan.’ Papers & Reports on Child Language Development, Stanford University 28.Find this resource:

Duranti, Alessandro & Elinor Ochs. 1990. ‘Genitive constructions and agency in Samoan discourse.’ Studies in Language 14(1): 1–23.Find this resource:

Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris.Find this resource:

Durie, Mark. 1988. ‘Preferred argument structure in an active language: Arguments against the category “intransitive subject.” ’ Lingua 74: 1–25.Find this resource:

Durie, Mark. 1994. ‘A case study of pragmatic linking.’ Text 14(4): 495–529.Find this resource:

Durie, Mark. 2003. ‘New light on information pressure: Information conduits, “escape valves,” and role alignment stretching,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 159–196.Find this resource:

Dutra, Rosalia. 1987. ‘The hybrid S category in Brazilian Portuguese: Some implications for word order.’ Studies in Language 11: 163–180.Find this resource:

Edmonson, Barbara W. 1988. ‘A descriptive grammar of Huasteco (Potosino dialect).’ PhD dissertation, Tulane University.Find this resource:

(p. 1170) Ehrich, Veronika. 2002. ‘On the verbal nature of certain nominal entities,’ in Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (eds.), More than words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 69–89.Find this resource:

Embick, David. 1998. ‘Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface,’ in Heidi Harley (ed.), MITWPL 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect. Cambridge, 41–72.Find this resource:

Embick, David. 2010. Localism and globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. ‘Movement operations after syntax.’ Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.Find this resource:

Enç, Mürvet. 1991. ‘The semantics of specificity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 1–25.Find this resource:

Endriss, Cornelia. 2009. Quantificational topics: A scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena a scopal treatment of exceptional wide scope phenomena. New York: Springer.Find this resource:

England, Nora C. 1983. ‘Ergativity in Mamean (Mayan) languages.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 1–19.Find this resource:

England, Nora C. 1991. ‘Changes in basic word order in Mayan languages.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 57(4): 446–486.Find this resource:

England, Nora C. & Laura Martin 2003. ‘Issues in the comparative argument structure analysis in Mayan narratives,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 131–157.Find this resource:

Erckert, Roderich von. 1895. Die Sprachen des kaukasischen Stammes. Vienna: Niemeyer.Find this resource:

Erdocia, Kepa, Itziar Laka, Anna Mestres-Missé, & Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells. 2009. ‘Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque.’ Brain and Language 109(1): 1–17.Find this resource:

Erdocia, Kepa, Itziar Laka, & Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells. 2012. ‘Processing verb medial word orders in a verb final language,’ Case, word order and prominence. Dordrecht: Springer, 217–237.Find this resource:

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. ‘Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(2): 429–479.Find this resource:

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. [to appear]. ‘Subject marking on non-subjects in Squliq Atayal,’ Proceedings of the 20th meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA 20). Arlington, TX: University of Texas.Find this resource:

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, Theodore Levin, & Coppe van Urk. 2015. ‘What makes a voice system? On the relationship between voice marking and case,’ In Amber Camp, Yuko Otsuka, Claire Stabile and Nozomi Tanaka (eds.), AFLA 21: The Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association. Arlington, TX: University of Texas, 51–68.Find this resource:

Estevam, Adriana Machado. 2011. ‘Morphosyntaxe du xavante. Langue Jê du Mato Grosso, Brésil.’ PhD dissertation, Université Paris 7.Find this resource:

Estival, Dominique & John Myhill. 1988. ‘Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems,’ in Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice. (Typological Studies in Language, 16.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 441–491.Find this resource:

Etxepare, Ricardo. 2003. ‘Valency and argument structure in the Basque verb,’ in J.I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 363–425.Find this resource:

Etxepare, Ricardo. 2013. ‘Basque spatial cases and the ergative–absolutive syncretism,’ in R. Gómez, J. Gorrochategui, J.A. Lakarra, & C. Mounole (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Luis Michelena Chair. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV-EHU.Find this resource:

(p. 1171) Etxepare, Ricardo. 2014. ‘Contact and change in a minimalist theory of variation,’ in C. Picallo (ed.), Linguistic variation in the minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 108–139.Find this resource:

Etxepare, Ricardo & Bernard Oyharçabal. 2013. ‘Datives and adpositions in north-eastern Basque,’ in B. Fernández & R. Etxepare (eds.), Variation in datives: A micro-comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Etxepare, Ricardo & Miriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2010. ‘Hitz hurrenkera eta birregituraketa euskaraz,’ in Ricardo Etxepare, Ricardo Gómez, & Joseba A. Lakarra (eds.), Beñat Oihartzabali gorazarre—Festschrift for Bernard Oyharçabal. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo43(1–2): 335–356.Find this resource:

Etxepare, Ricardo & Miriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2012. ‘Denominal necessity modals in Basque,’ in Urtzi Etxeberria, Ricardo Etxepare, & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (eds.), DPs and nominalizations in Basque. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 283–332.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: With comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas (ed.). 2003. The non-Pama–Nyungan Languages of Northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region (Pacific Linguistics 552/Studies in Language Change). Canberra: Australian National University.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. ‘Insubordination and its uses,’ in Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas. 2013. ‘Language diversity as a resource for understanding cultural evolution,’ in Peter J. Richerson & Morten H. Christiansen (eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. ‘The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–448. [discussion: 448–494]Find this resource:

Everett, Caleb. 2009. ‘A reconsideration of the motivations for preferred argument structure.’ Studies in Language 33: 1–24.Find this resource:

Ezeizabarrena, Marijo. 1996. Adquisición de la morfología verbal en euskera y castellano por niños bilingües. Bilbao: Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco.Find this resource:

Ezeizabarrena, Maria José. 2012. ‘The (in)consistent ergative marking in early Basque: L1 vs. child L2.’ Lingua 127: 303–317.Find this resource:

Ezeizabarrena, Marijo & Pilar Larrañaga. 1996. ‘Ergativity in Basque: A problem for language acquisition?’ Linguistics 34: 955–991.Find this resource:

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2012. A grammar of Chiapas Zoque. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2013. ‘Subject in Scandinavian,’ in Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds.), The diachronic typology of non-prototypical subjects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 187–202.Find this resource:

Falk, Yehuda N. 2006. Subjects and universal grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University PressFind this resource:

Faller, Martina T. 2002. ‘Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua’. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Find this resource:

Farrell, Patrick. 1992. ‘Semantic relations vs. abstract syntactic relations: Evidence from Halkomelem,’ Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 76–87.Find this resource:

Farrell, Tim. 1995. ‘Fading ergativity? A study of ergativity in Balochi,’ in David C. Bennett (ed.), Subject, voice and ergativity: Selected essays. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 218–243.Find this resource:

(p. 1172) Farrell, Tim. 2003. ‘Linguistic influences on the Baloch spoken in Karachi,’ in Carina Jahani & Agnes Korn (eds.) 2003. The Baloch and their neighbours. Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 169–210.Find this resource:

Fassberg, Steven E. 2014. ‘The origin of the periphrastic preterite kəm/qam-qāṭəlle in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic,’ in G. Khan & L. Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 172–186.Find this resource:

Fauconnier, Stefanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2010. ‘Distinguishing animacy effects for agents: A case study of Australian languages.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 30: 183–207.Find this resource:

Fauconnier, Stefanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2014. ‘A and O as each other’s mirror image? Problems with markedness reversal.’ Linguistic Typology 18(1): 3–49.Find this resource:

Feldman, Harry. 1986. A grammar of Awtuw. Canberra: Australian National University.Find this resource:

Fernández, Beatriz. 1997. Egiturazko kasuaren erkaketa euskaraz. Bilbao: UPV-EHU.Find this resource:

Fernández, Beatriz. 2013. ‘Some reflexions on Basque auxiliary selection.’ Wedisyn’s Fourth Workshop on Syntactic Variation, Santiago de Compostela, Galiza, April 18–19.Find this resource:

Fernández, Beatriz & Pablo Albizu. 2000. ‘Ergative displacement in Basque and the division of labor between morphology and syntax,’ in J. Boyle, J. Lee, & A. Okrent (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society 36, volume 2: The panels. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Find this resource:

Fernández, Beatriz & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2010. Datiboa hiztegian. Bilbao: UPV-EHU.Find this resource:

Fernández, Beatriz & Milan Rezac. 2016. ‘Differential object marking in Basque varieties,’ in B. Fernández & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), Microparameters in the grammar of Basque. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 93–138.Find this resource:

Ferreira, Marília. 2003. ‘Estudo morfossintático da língua Parkatêjê.’ PhD dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Find this resource:

Fiebach, Christian, Matthias Schlesewsky, & Angela D. Friederici. 2001. ‘Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler–gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(3): 321–38.Find this resource:

Fiebach, Christian, Matthias Schlesewsky, & Angela D. Friederici. 2002. ‘Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions.’ Journal of Memory and Language 47(2), 250–272.Find this resource:

Filimonova, Elena. 2005. ‘The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence.’ Linguistic Typology 9: 22–113.Find this resource:

Filip, Hana. 2008. ‘Events and maximalization,’ in Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 217–256.Find this resource:

Filip, Hana & Susan Rothstein. 2006. ‘Telicity as a semantic parameter,’ Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics #14: The Princeton Meeting 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, 139–156.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. ‘The case for case,’ in Emmon Bach & Richard Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1–90.Find this resource:

Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. ‘The case for case reopened,’ in Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press, 59–81.Find this resource:

Finer, Daniel. 1994. ‘On the nature of two A’-positions in Selyarese,’ in Norbert Corver & Henk C. Van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to free word order phenomena (Studies in Generative Grammar, 41). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 153–184.Find this resource:

Fintel, Kai von. 2003. ‘Epistemic modals and conditionals revisited.’ Paper presented at the UMass Linguistics colloquium.Find this resource:

(p. 1173) Fintel, Kai von. 2004. ‘A minimal theory of adverbial quantification,’ in Barbara Partee & Hans Kamp (eds.), Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning (Current Research in Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, vol. 11). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 137–175.Find this resource:

Fleck, David W. 2006. ‘Antipassive in Matses.’ Studies in Language 30: 551–573.Find this resource:

Fodor, Janet Dean & Atsu Inoue. 1994. ‘The diagnosis and cure of garden paths.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23: 407–434.Find this resource:

Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Foley, William A. 1998. ‘Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages.’ Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane.Find this resource:

Foley, William A. 2008. ‘The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems,’ in Peter K. Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds.), Voice and grammatical relation in Austronesian languages (Studies in Constraint Based Lexicalism). Stanford, CA: CSLI, 22–44.Find this resource:

Foley, William A. & Robert Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Folli, Raffaela & Heidi Harley. 2007. ‘Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v.’ Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 197–238.Find this resource:

Folli, Raffaela & Heidi Harley. 2004. ‘Consuming results: flavors of little v,’ in P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual inquiries. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–25.Find this resource:

Folmer, Margaretha L. 1995. The Aramaic language in the Achaemenid period: A study in linguistic variation. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 68. Leuven: PeetersFind this resource:

Forbes, Clarissa. 2013. ‘Coordination and number in the Gitksan nominal domain.’ MA thesis, University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2010. ‘The biabsolutive construction in Nakh–Daghestanian.’ MS, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2011. ‘Grammatical relations in Hinuq,’ in Vittorio Tomelleri, Manana Topadze, & Anna Lukianowicz (eds.), Languages and cultures in the Caucasus: Papers from the international conference ‘Current advances in Caucasian studies,’ Macerata, January 21–23, 2010. Berlin: Otto Sagner, 553–567.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2012. ‘The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh–Daghestanian.’ Folia Linguistica 46: 75–108.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2013a. A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2013b. ‘Microtypology and the Tsezic languages: A case study of syntactic properties of converbal clauses.’ SKY Journal of Linguistics 26: 21–40.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2014. ‘Are there subject anaphors?’ Linguistic Typology 18: 51–81.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. 2016. ‘Complementizers in Hinuq,’ in Kasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Semantic functions of complementizers in European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, 745–792.Find this resource:

Forker, Diana. [in press] ‘Complementizers in Hinuq,’ in Kasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Semantic functions of complementizers in European languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars). London: Croom Helm.Find this resource:

Fortescue, Michael. 1995. The historical source and typological position of ergativity in Eskimo languages. Inuit Studies 19(2): 61–75.Find this resource:

Fortescue, Michael., Steven. Jacobson, & Lawrence. Kaplan. 2010. Comparative Eskimo dictionary: 25 with Aleut cognates (2nd edn.). Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.Find this resource:

Fox, Charles E. 1970. Arosi dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

(p. 1174) Fox, Danny. 1995. ‘Economy and scope.’ Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341.Find this resource:

Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Fox, Samuel Ethan. 2009. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Bohtan. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.Find this resource:

Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. ‘Agreement is feature sharing.’ MS, Northeastern University.Find this resource:

Franchetto, Bruna. 2010. ‘The ergativity effect in Kuikuro (Southern Carib, Brazil),’ in Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia (Typological Studies in Language, 89). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 121–158.Find this resource:

Frank, Paul S. 1985. ‘A grammar of Ika.’ PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Find this resource:

Fraser, Bruce. 1974. ‘An examination of the performative analysis.’ Papers in Linguistics 7: 140.Find this resource:

Freeze, Ray. 1992. ‘Existentials and other locatives.’ Language 68(3): 553–595.Find this resource:

Frey, Werner. 2000. ‘Über die syntaktische Position der Satztopiks im Deutschen,’ in Kerstin Schwabe et al. (eds.), Issues in topics (ZAS papers in linguistics 20). Berlin: ZAS, 137–172.Find this resource:

Fried, Mirjam. 2008. ‘Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution,’ in Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change. Berlin: de Gruyter, 47–80.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D. 1995. ‘The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data.’ Brain and Language 50: 259–281Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D. 2011. ‘The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function.’ Physiological Reviews 91(4): 1357–1392.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., Axel Mecklinger, Kevin M. Spencer, Karsten Steinhauer, & Emanuel Donchin. 2011. ‘Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials.’ Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research 11(2): 305–323.Find this resource:

Friederici, Angela D., Martin Meyer, & D. Yves von Cramon. 2000. ‘Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical information.’ Brain and Language 74(2): 289–300.Find this resource:

Frisch, Stefan & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2001. ‘The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierachizing.’ Basic and Climitical Neurophysiology 12(15): 3391–3394.Find this resource:

Frisch, Stefan & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2005. ‘The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective.’ Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research 25(2): 484–498.Find this resource:

Furman, Yulia & Sergey Loesev. 2014. ‘Studies in the Ṭuroyo verb,’ in G. Khan & L. Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 1–28.Find this resource:

Gaby, Alice. 2008a. ‘Pragmatically case-marked: Non-syntactic functions of the Thaayorre ergative suffix,’ in Ilana Mushin & Brett Baker (eds.), Discourse and grammar in Australian languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 111–134.Find this resource:

Gaby, Alice. 2008b. ‘Rebuilding Australia’s linguistic profile: Recent developments in research on Australian aboriginal languages.’ Language and Linguistics Compass 2(2): 211–233.Find this resource:

Gaby, Alice. 2010. ‘From discourse to syntax and back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology.’ Lingua 120(7): 1677–1692.Find this resource:

Gagliardi, Annie. 2012. ‘Input and intake in language acquisition.’ PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Find this resource:

Gagliardi, Annie, Michael Goncalves, Maria Polinsky, & Nina Radkevich. 2014. ‘The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez.’ Lingua 150: 137–170.Find this resource:

Gair, James W. & Kashi Wali. 1988. ‘On distinguishing AGR from agr: Evidence from South Asia.’ Chicago Linguistics Society 24: 87–104.Find this resource:

(p. 1175) Galloway, Brent Douglas. 1977. A grammar of Chilliwack Halkomelem, vol. 1. University of California.Find this resource:

Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2006. ‘Experiencer coding in Nakh–Daghestanian,’ in Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov, & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valence and transitivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 179–202.Find this resource:

Ganenkov, Dmitry, Timur Maisak, & Solmaz Merdanova. 2008. ‘Non-canonical agent marking in Agul,’ in Helen de Hoop Helen & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer, 173–198.Find this resource:

Garrett, Andrew. 1990. ‘The origin of NP split ergativity.’ Language 66(2): 261–296.Find this resource:

Gärtner, Hans Martin, & Markus Steinbach. 2006. ‘A skeptical note on the syntax of speech acts and point of view,’ Form, structure, grammar. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 213–222.Find this resource:

Gathercole, Virginia C. Mueller, Eugenia Sebastián, & Pilar Soto. 1999. ‘The early acquisition of Spanish verbal morphology: Across-the-board or piecemeal knowledge.’ International Journal of Bilingualism 3: 133–182.Find this resource:

Gawne, Lauren. 2013. ‘Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: Evidentiality, reported speech and questions.’ PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.Find this resource:

Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Genetti, Carol. 1991. ‘From postposition to subordinator in Newari,’ in Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Routledge Language Family Series, 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 227–255.Find this resource:

Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar (Mouton Grammar Library 40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Genetti, Carol. 2015. ‘The Tibeto-Burman language of South Asia: The languages, their histories, and genetic relationships,’ in Elena Bashir, Hans Henrich Hock, & K.V. Subbārāo (eds.), The languages and linguistics of South Asia: A comprehensive guide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Genetti, Carol & Laura Crain. 2003. ‘Beyond preferred argument structure: Sentences, pronouns, and given referents in Nepali,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 197–223.Find this resource:

George, Leland & Jaklin Kornfilt. 1981. ‘Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish,’ in Frank Heny (ed.), Binding and filtering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 105–129.Find this resource:

Georgi, Doreen. 2014. ‘Opaque interactions of merge and agree.’ PhD thesis, Universität Leipzig.Find this resource:

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988a. Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.Find this resource:

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988b. ‘Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis,’ in Richard McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 295–321.Find this resource:

Gerdts, Donna B. & Thomas E. Hukari. 2005. ‘Multiple antipassives in Halkomelem Salish.’ Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 51–62.Find this resource:

Gerdts, Donna B. & Thomas E. Hukari. 2006. ‘The Halkomelem middle: A complex network of constructions.’ Anthropological Linguistics 48: 44–81.Find this resource:

Gibson, Jeanne & Stanley Starosta. 1990. ‘Ergativity East and West,’ in Philip Baldi (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 195–210.Find this resource:

Gil, David. 1993. ‘Syntactic categories in Tagalog,’ in Sudapom Luksaneeyanawin (ed.), Pan-Asiatic linguistics: Proceedings of the third international symposium on language and linguistics Bangkok January 8–10, 1991. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 1136–1150.Find this resource:

(p. 1176) Gil, David. 1995. ‘Parts of speech in Tagalog,’ in Mark Alves (ed.), Papers from the third annual meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe: Arizona State University, 67–90.Find this resource:

Gil, David. 2000. ‘Syntactic categories, cross-linguistic variation and universal grammar,’ in Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, vol. 23). Berlin: de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Gildea, Spike. 1998. On reconstructing grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Gildea, Spike. 2000. Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Gildea, Spike. 2004. ‘Are there universal cognitive motivations for ergativity?’ in Francesc Queixalós (ed.), L’ergativité en Amazonie, v. 2. Brasília: CNRS, IRD and the Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, UnB, 1–37.Find this resource:

Gildea, Spike. 2008. ‘Explaining similarities between main clauses and nominalized phrases.’ Amérindia 32: 57–75.Find this resource:

Gildea, Spike & Flávia de Castro Alves. 2010. ‘Nominative–absolutive: Counter-universal split ergativity in Jê and Cariban,’ in Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 159–199.Find this resource:

Gillon, Carrie. 1999. ‘When wh-words move and why: A case study in Inuktitut’. MA dissertation, University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 2001. ‘Ways of terminating,’ in Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia, & Maria T. Guasti (eds.), Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:

Giridhar, Puttushetra Puttuswamy. 1980. Angami grammar. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 1980. ‘The drift away from ergativity.’ Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 41–60.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983a. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross language study. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 1983b. ‘Topic continuity in spoken English: An introduction,’ in T. Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 1–42.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional–typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 2001a. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 2001b. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Glass, Amee & Dorothy Hackett. 2003. Ngaanytjarra & Ngaatjatjarra to English dictionary. Alice Springs, NT: IAD Press.Find this resource:

Glennon, John J. 2014. ‘Syntactic ergativity in Nehan.’ MA thesis, Dallas, Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics.Find this resource:

Goddard, Cliff. 1982. ‘Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 2: 167–196.Find this resource:

Goddard, Cliff. 1986. Yankunytjatjara grammar. Alice Springs: Institute for Aboriginal Development.Find this resource:

(p. 1177) Goenaga, Patxi. 1985. ‘Nahi eta Behar,’ in Jose Luis Melena (ed.), Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena septuagenario oblatae. Veleia Anex 1. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Instituto de Ciencias de la Antigüedad/Aitinate-zientzien Instituta, Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea UPV/EHU, 943–953.Find this resource:

Goenaga, Patxi. 2006. ‘Behar-en lekua hiztegian eta gramatikan,’ in Beatriz Fernández & Itziar Laka (eds.), Andolin gogoan: Essays in honour of Professor Eguzkitza. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country, 397–416.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Goldberg, Adele E. 2004. ‘Pragmatics and argument structure,’ in Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 427–441.Find this resource:

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1992. ‘Aramaic Perfects.’ Israel Oriental Studies 12: 113–133.Find this resource:

Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. ‘Thought before language: Do we think ergative?’ in Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 493–522.Find this resource:

Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Elif Yalabik, & Lisa Gershkoff-Stowe. 2000. ‘The resilience of ergative structure in language created by children and by adults,’ in S.C. Howell, S.A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University conference on language development, vol. 1. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 343–353.Find this resource:

Gómez, Ricardo & Koldo Sainz. 1995. ‘On the origin of the finite forms of the Basque verb,’ in J.I. Hualde, J. Lakarra & R.L. Trask (eds.), Towards a history of the Basque language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 235–273.Find this resource:

Gonda, Jan. 1951. Remarks on the Sanskrit passive. Leiden: Brill.Find this resource:

Goodall, Grant. 1993. ‘On case and the passive morpheme.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 31–44.Find this resource:

Goodall, Grant. 1999. ‘Passives and arbitrary plural subjects in Spanish,’ in J.-Marc Authier, Barbara Bullock, & Lisa Reed (eds.), Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics: Papers from the 28th linguistic symposium on Romance languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 135–150.Find this resource:

Gordon, Peter C. & Randall Hendrick. 2005. ‘Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36(3), 456–463.Find this resource:

Granites, Robin Japanangka, Ken Hale, & David Odling-Smee. 1976. Survey of Warlpiri syntax and morphology [typed version of Odling-Smee MS ‘Survey of Warlpiri grammar’]. Cambridge MA: MIT, 65 pp. ts.Find this resource:

Green, Ian & Rachel Nordlinger. 2004. ‘Revisiting Proto-Mirndi,’ in Claire Bowern & Harold Koch (eds.), Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 291–311.Find this resource:

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. The languages of Africa. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978/1990. ‘How does a language acquire gender markers?’ in Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), On language: Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 241–270.Find this resource:

Gregersen, Edgar A. 1977. Language in Africa: An introductory survey. New York, Paris, & London: Gordon & Breach.Find this resource:

Grewendorf, Günther. 1972. ‘Sprache ohne Kontext. Zur Kritik der performativen Analyse,’ in Dieter Wunderlich (ed.), Linguistische Pragmatik. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum, 144–182Find this resource:

Griffin, Zenzi M. & Kathryn Bock. 2000. ‘What the eyes say about speaking.’ Psychological Science 11(4): 274–279.Find this resource:

(p. 1178) Grimm, Scott. 2011. ‘Semantics of dase,’ Morphology 21: 515–544.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Grimshaw, Jane & Armin Mester. 1985. ‘Complex verb formation in Eskimo.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 1–19.Find this resource:

Grinevald Craig, Colette. 1979. ‘The antipassive and Jacaltec,’ Papers in Mayan linguistics, vol. 7. Lucas Brothers, 139–164.Find this resource:

Grinevald, Colette & Marc Peake. 2012. ‘Ergativity and voice in Mayan languages: A functional–typological approach,’ in G. Authier & K. Haude (eds.), Ergativity, valency and voice. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 15–49Find this resource:

Grinstead, John. 2000. ‘Case, inflection and subject licensing in child Catalan and Spanish,’ Journal of Child Language 27: 119–55.Find this resource:

Grinstead, John. 2004. ‘Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan,’ Language 80: 40–72.Find this resource:

Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Grune, Dick. 1998. ‘Burushaski: An extraordinary language in the Karakoram mountains.’ MS, Vrije University.Find this resource:

Gulya, János. 1966. Eastern Ostyak chrestomathy. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.Find this resource:

Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1993. Causative and perception verbs: A comparative study. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Find this resource:

Guilfoyle, Eithne, Henrietta Hung, & Lisa Travis. 1992. ‘Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414.Find this resource:

Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Guillaume, Antoine. 2014. ‘The decay of ergativity in Tacana (Tacanan family, Amazonian Bolivia): A preliminary descriptive and comparative study.’ Paper presented at Syntax of the World’s Languages VI, Pavia, 8–10, September.Find this resource:

Guirardello-Damian, Raquel. 2003. ‘Classes verbais e mudanças de valência em Trumai,’ in Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop Ergatividade Na Amazônia. Paris: Centre d’études des langues indigènes d’Amèrique (CNRS, IRD) and Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, 195–214.Find this resource:

Guiradello-Damian, Raquel. 2010. ‘Ergativity in Trumai,’ in Spike Gildea & Francesc Queixalós (eds.), Ergativity in Amazonia. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 203–234.Find this resource:

Gutiérrez-Mangado, Maria Juncal. 2011. ‘Children’s comprehension of relative clauses in an ergative language: The case of Basque.’ Language Acquisition 18(3): 176–201.Find this resource:

Gutman, Ariel. 2009. ‘Reexamination of the bare preterite base in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Zakho.’ Aramaic Studies 6(1): 59–84Find this resource:

Gzella, Holger. 2004. Tempus, Aspekt Und Modalität Im Reichsaramäischen. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 48. Wiesbaden: HarrassowitzFind this resource:

Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. ‘Aspects of modality.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Haddican, Bill. 2005. ‘Two kinds of restructuring infinitives in Basque,’ in John Alderete, Chung-hye Han, & Alexei Kochetov (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 24. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 182–190.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane. 1998. ‘Root infinitives, clitics and truncated structures’, in H. Clahsen (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 271–307.Find this resource:

Haegeman, Liliane & Virginia Hill. 2013. ‘The syntactization of discourse,’ in Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali, & Robert Truswell (eds.), Syntax and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 370–390.Find this resource:

(p. 1179) Haegeman, Liliane & Terje Lohndal. 2010. ‘Negative concord and (multiple) agree: A case study of west Flemish.’ Linguistic Inquiry 41: 181–211.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Colin M. Brown, & Jolanda Groothusen. 1993. ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 439–483.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Colin M. Brown, & Lee E. Osterhout. 1999. ‘The neurocognition of syntactic processing,’ in C. Brown & P. Hagoort (eds.), The neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 273–316.Find this resource:

Hagoort, Peter, Lea Hald, Marcel Bastiaansen, & Karl Magnus Petersson. 2004. ‘Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension.’ Science 304(5669): 438–441.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey. 1998. ‘On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity: Lessons from Kurdish.’ Lingua 105: 149–173.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey. 2004. Alignment in Kurdish: A diachronic perspective. Habilitationsschrift. Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey. 2006. ‘Turkish influence on Kurmanji: Evidence from the Tunceli dialect,’ in Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.), Turkic–Iranian contact areas: Historical and linguistic aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 283–299.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey. 2010. ‘Alignment,’ in Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics. New York: Continuum, 250–268.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. 2014. ‘Kurdish: A critical research overview.’ Kurdish Studies 2(2): 99–122Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey & Ergin Öpengin. [forthcoming]. ‘Kurdish in Turkey: An overview of grammar, dialectal variation and status,’ in C. Bulut (ed.), Minority languages in Turkey. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Find this resource:

Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016. ‘The discourse basis of ergativity revisited.’ Language 92(3): 591–618.Find this resource:

Hajičová, Eva, Barbara H. Partee, & Petr Sgall. 1998. Topic–focus articulation, tripartite structures, and semantic content. Dordrecht, Boston, & London: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1959–1960 and 1966–1967. ‘Warlpiri language fieldnotes.’ MS deposited in Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), Canberra ACT.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1968. ‘Review of Hohepa 1967.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 77: 83–99.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1970. ‘The passive and ergative in language change: The Australian case,’ in S.A. Wurm & D.C. Laycock (eds.), Pacific linguistics studies in honour of Arthur Capell. Canberra: Australian National University, 757–781.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1972. ‘A new perspective on American Indian linguistics,’ in A. Ortiz (ed.), New perspectives on the Pueblos. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 87–103.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1973a. ‘Person marking in Walbiri,’ in Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 308–344.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1973b. ‘Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: An Australian example,’ in A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 401–458.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1976a. ‘The adjoined relative clause in Australia,’ in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 78–105.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1976b. ‘On ergative and locative suffixal alternations in Australian languages,’ in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), 414–417.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1981a. On the position of Walbiri in a typology of the base. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Find this resource:

(p. 1180) Hale, Ken. 1981b. ‘Preliminary remarks on the grammar of part-whole relations in Warlpiri,’ in Jim Hollyman & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Studies in Pacific languages & cultures in honour of Bruce Biggs. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand, 333–344.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1982. ‘Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses,’ in Stephen Swartz (ed.), Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lothar Jagst. Papers of SIL-AAB, Series A, vol. 6. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 217–315.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 1983. ‘Warlpiri and the grammar of nonconfigurational languages.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 1–47.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken. 2002. ‘Eccentric agreement,’ in Beatriz Fernández & Pablo Albizu (eds.), Kasu eta komunztaduraren gainean. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Euskal Herriko Unibetsitatea, 15–48.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations,’ in Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–110.Find this resource:

Hale, Ken, Mary Laughren, & Jane Simpson 1995. ‘Warlpiri,’ in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, & T. Venneman (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1430–1451.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris. 1997. ‘Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: 425–449.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris & Ken Hale. 1997. ‘Chukchi transitive and antipassive constructions.’ MS, MIT.Find this resource:

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection,’ in Ken Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176.Find this resource:

Hallman, Peter. 2008. ‘Definiteness in Inuktitut.’ MS, University of Vienna.Find this resource:

Halpert, Claire. 2012. ‘Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Hamann, Cornelia. 2002. From syntax to discourse: Pronominal clitics, null subjects and infinitives in child language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Find this resource:

Hamann, Cornelia, Luigi Rizzi, & Ulrich H. Frauenfelder. 1998. ‘On the acquisition of subject and object clitics in French,’ in H. Clahsen (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 309–334.Find this resource:

Han, Chung-Hye. 2000. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. New York: Garland & Routledge.Find this resource:

Handschuh, Corinna. 2014. A typology of marked-S languages. Studies in Diversity Linguistics, 1. New York: Language Science Press.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi. 2002. ‘Possession and the double object construction.’ Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi. 2013. ‘External arguments and the mirror principle: On the distinctness of voice and v.’ Lingua 125: 34–57.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi & Rolf Noyer. 1999. ‘State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology.’ Glot International 4(4): 3–9.Find this resource:

Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature–geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526.Find this resource:

Harper, Kenn. 1974. Some aspects of the grammar of Eskimo dialects of Cumberland Peninsula and North Baffin Island. Ottawa, Ontario: National Museum of Canada.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 1982. ‘Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis.’ Language 58(2): 290–306.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. Orlando: Academic Press.Find this resource:

(p. 1181) Harris, Alice C. 1988. ‘art’ik’lisagan nac’armoebi brunvebi kartvelur enebši da enobrivi universialebi’ [‘Case desinences derived from articles in the Kartvelian languages and linguistic universals’], in E. Khintibidze (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st international symposium in Kartvelian studies. Tbilisi: TSUG, 64–70.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 1990. ‘Georgian: A language with active case marking.’ Lingua 80: 347–365.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 1994. ‘Ergative-to-accusative shift in agreement: Tabasaran,’ in Howard I. Aaronson (ed.), Linguistic studies in the non–Slavic languages in the Commonwealth of Independent states and the Baltic republics (NSL7). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 113–131.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 2006. ‘Active/inactive marking,’ in Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier, 40–44.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns,’ in Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 73–96.Find this resource:

Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Harris, John. 1986. Northern Territory pidgins and the origin of Kriol. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Harris, Tony & Ken Wexler. 1996. ‘The optional infinitive stage in child grammars,’ in Harald Clahsen (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 1–42.Find this resource:

Hartmann, Katharina & Malte Zimmermann. 2007. ‘In place—out of place? Focus in Hausa,’ in Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds.), On information structure, meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 365–403.Find this resource:

Harves, Stephanie. 2008. ‘Intensional transitives and silent HAVE: Distinguishing between Want and Need,’ in Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast conference on formal linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 211–219.Find this resource:

Harves, Stephanie & Richard S. Kayne. 2012. ‘Having “need” and needing “have.” ’ Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 120–132Find this resource:

Harvey, Mark. 2008. Proto Mirndi: A discontinuous language family in northern Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin. 1991. ‘On the question of deep ergativity: The evidence from Lezgian.’ Papiere zur Linguistik 44/45: 5–27.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. ‘Complement clauses,’ in Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), Godoberi. Munich: Lincom, 175–197.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. ‘Long distance agreement in Godoberi (Daghestanian) complement clauses.’ Folia Linguistica 33: 131–151.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. ‘Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages,’ in A. Aikhenvald et al. (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 53–85.Find this resource:

Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. ‘Universals of differential case marking.’ Handout, accessed at http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/2.DiffCaseMarking.pdf

Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. ‘Review of preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function.’ Language 83: 908–912.Find this resource:

(p. 1182) Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. ‘Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms,’ in Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska. Berlin: Mouton.Find this resource:

Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2013. Case in Semitic: Roles, relations, and reconstruction (Oxford studies in diachronic and historical linguistics, 3). Oxford: Oxford University PressFind this resource:

Haupt, Friederike S., Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, Angela D. Friederici, & Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. ‘The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture.’ Journal of Memory and Language 59(1): 54–96.Find this resource:

Haviland, John. 1979. ‘Guugu Yimidhirr,’ in R.M.W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 26–180.Find this resource:

Haviland, John. 1981. Sk’op sotz’leb. El tzotzil de San Lorenzo Zinacantán. Mexico, DF: UNAM.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Hayashi, Midori. 2011. ‘The structure of multiple tenses in Inuktitut.’ PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Hayashi, Midori & Bettina Spreng. 2005. ‘Is Inuktitut tenseless?’ Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Find this resource:

Heath, Jeffrey. 1976. ‘Antipassivization: A functional typology.’ Proceedings of the second annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 202–211.Find this resource:

Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. ‘Whither ergativity? A review article.’ Linguistics 18, 877–910.Find this resource:

Heim, Johannes. 2015. ‘Expertise and common ground’. MS, UBC.Find this resource:

Heim, Johannes, Hermann Keupdjio, Zoe Wai Man Lam, Adriana Osa-Gómez, & Martina Wiltschko. 2014. ‘How to do things with particles.’ Proceedings of the CLA.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd. 2003. ‘Grammaticalization,’ in Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 575–601.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd & Derek Nurse. 2000. African languages: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog. 2011. ‘Introduction,’ in Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–16.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd. 2009. ‘Grammaticalizaton of cases’, in Andrej L. Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 458–469.Find this resource:

Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2003. ‘Argument splits in Finnish grammar and discourse,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 247–272.Find this resource:

Heine, Bernd. 2009. ‘Grammaticalizaton of cases,’ in Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 458–469.Find this resource:

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 1996. ‘The syntax of personal agreement in East Caucasian languages.’ Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49: 127–148.Find this resource:

(p. 1183) Hemmauer, Roland & Michael Waltisberg. 2006. ‘Zur Relationalen Verhalten Der Verbalflexion Im Ṭuroyo.’ Folia Linguistica Historica 27(1–2): 19–59.Find this resource:

Henderson, Brent. 2006. ‘The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses.’ Dissertation, University of Illinois.Find this resource:

Henderson, Brent. 2011. ‘Agreement, locality, and OVS in Bantu.’ Lingua 121: 742–753.Find this resource:

Henderson, Robert. 2012. Morphological alternations at the intonational phrase edge: The case of K’ichee.’ Natural language & linguistic theory 30: 741–787.Find this resource:

Hendriks, Petra & Helen de Hoop. 2001. ‘Optimality theoretic semantics.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 1–32.Find this resource:

Hercus, Luise. 1982. The Bagandji language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Herring, Susan. 1989. ‘Verbless presentation and the discourse basis of ergativity,’ in Bradley Music, Randolph Graczyk, & Caroline Wiltshire (eds.), Papers from the 25th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 25, Part 2: Parasession on language in context. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society, 123–137.Find this resource:

Hewitt, Brian George. 1995. ‘Georgian: Ergative, active, or what?’ in D.C. Bennett, T. Bynon, & B.G. Hewitt (eds.), Subject, voice and ergativity. London: SOAS, 202–217.Find this resource:

Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik. 2006. From case to adposition: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Hill, Virginia. 2007. ‘Vocatives and the pragmatics: Syntax interface.’ Lingua 117: 2077–2105.Find this resource:

Hill, Virginia. 2013. ‘Features and strategies: The internal syntax of vocative phrases,’ in Barbara Sonnenhauser & Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna (eds.), Vocatives! Addressing between system and performance. Berlin: Mouton, 79–102.Find this resource:

Hill, Virginia & Melita Stavrou. 2013. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.Find this resource:

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1987. Morphosyntax und Morphologie. Die Ausrichtungsaffixe im Tagalog, vol. 8 of Studien zur theoretischen Linguistik. Munich: Fink.Find this resource:

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1991. ‘The Philippine challenge to universal grammar.’ Institute for Linguistics, University of Köln Working Papers 15.Find this resource:

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?’ in Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 158.) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–42.Find this resource:

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. ‘Typological characteristics,’ in Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. ‘Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog,’ Voice and grammatical functions in Austronesian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 247–293.Find this resource:

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. ‘Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese.’ MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40(40): 67–80.Find this resource:

Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1986. ‘ “P-Oriented” constructions in Sanskrit,’ in Bh. Krishnamurti (ed.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Find this resource:

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Hoddinott, William G., & Frances M. Kofod. 1976a. ‘The bivalent suffix -ku: Djamindjungan,’ in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 437–441.Find this resource:

Hoddinott, William G., & Frances M. Kofod. 1976b. ‘Ergative, locative and instrumental case inflections: Djamindjungan,’ in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 397–401.Find this resource:

(p. 1184) Hoddinott, William G., & Frances M. Kofod. 1976c. ‘Simple and compound verbs: Conjugation by auxiliaries in Australian verbal systems: Djamindjungan,’ in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 698–704.Find this resource:

Hoekstra, Teun & Nina Hyams. 1998. ‘Aspects of root infinitives.’ Lingua 106: 81–112.Find this resource:

Hoff, Erika & Letitia Naigles. 2002. ‘How children use input to acquire a lexicon.’ Child Development 73: 418–33.Find this resource:

Hoffmann, Dorothea. 2011. ‘Descriptions of motion and travel in Jaminjung and Kriol.’ PhD, University of Manchester, Manchester.Find this resource:

Hofling, Charles A. 2003. ‘Tracking the deer: Nominal reference, parallelism and preferred argument structure in Itzaj Maya narrative genres,’ in John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf, & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 385–410.Find this resource:

Hohepa, Patrick W. 1969. ‘The accusative-to-ergative drift in Polynesian languages.’ Journal of the Polynesian Society 78: 295–329.Find this resource:

Holisky, Dee Ann. 1981. Aspect and Georgian medial verbs. Delmar, NY: Caravan Press.Find this resource:

Holisky, Dee Ann. 1984. ‘Anomalies in the use of the ergative case in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi).’ Folia Slavica 7: 181–194.Find this resource:

Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. ‘The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush.’ Lingua 71: 103–132.Find this resource:

Holisky, Dee Ann & Rusudan Gagua. 1994. ‘Tsova–Tush (Batsbi),’ in Rieks Smeets (ed.), The Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 4. Delmar, NY: Caravan Press, 148–212.Find this resource:

Holmberg, Anders. 1986. ‘Word order and syntactic features in the Scandinavian languages and English.’ PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Find this resource:

Holmberg, Anders. 1999. ‘Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization.’ Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39.Find this resource:

Holmberg, Anders & David Odden. 2004. ‘Ergativity and role-marking in Hawrami.’ Conference handout.Find this resource:

Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2000. ‘Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions.’ Lingua 113: 997–1019.Find this resource:

Holmer, Arthur. 1999. ‘An active analysis of Basque ergativity.’ Fontes Linguae Vasconum 31(81) (May–Aug.): 189–225.Find this resource:

Hook, Peter Edwin. 1974. The compound verb in Hindi. Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.Find this resource:

Hook, Peter Edwin. 1991. ‘On Identifying the Conceptual Restructuring of Passive to Ergative in Indo-Aryan,’ in Madhav M. Deshpande & Saroja Bhate (eds.), Pāninian studies: Professor S.D. Joshi felicitation volume. Michigan: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, 177–199.Find this resource:

Hook, Peter Edwin, Omkar N. Koul, & Ashok K. Koul. 1987. ‘Differential S-marking in Marathi, Hindi–Urdu and Kashmiri,’ Papers from the twenty-third regional meeting. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 148–165.Find this resource:

Hopkins, Simon. 1989. ‘Neo-Aramaic dialects and the formation of the preterite.’ Journal of Semitic Studies 37: 74–90.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. 1983. ‘Ergative, passive, and active in Malay narrative,’ in Flora Klein-Andreu (ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press, 67–88.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. ‘Emergent grammar.’ Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson 1980. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse.’ Language 56: 251–299.Find this resource:

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

(p. 1185) Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: From GB to minimalism. London: BlackwellFind this resource:

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. ‘Movement and control.’ Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96.Find this resource:

Horrocks, Geoffrey & Melita Stavrou. 1987. ‘Bounding theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for wh-movement in NP.’ Journal of Linguistics 23: 79–108.Find this resource:

Hou, Liwen. 2013. ‘Agent focus in Chuj reflexive constructions.’ BA thesis, McGill University.Find this resource:

Hualde, José Ignacio. 1991. Basque phonology. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Hualde, José Ignacio. 2003. ‘Case and number inflection in noun phrases,’ in J.I. Hualde & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.), A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 171–179.Find this resource:

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. ‘Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. ‘On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.’ Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.Find this resource:

Huang, Lillian Meijin. 1994. ‘Ergativity in Atayal.’ Oceanic Linguistics 33: 129–143.Find this resource:

Huang, Lillian Meijin. 2000. Atayal reference grammar, vol. 1 of Austronesian Languages of Taiwan. Taipei: Yuanliu.Find this resource:

Huang, Lillian Meijin, Marie M. Yeh, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Anna H. Chang, & Joy J. Wu. 1998. ‘A typological overview of nominal case marking systems of some Formosan languages,’ in Selected papers from the second international symposium on languages in Taiwan, 21–48. Taipei: Crane.Find this resource:

Huarte, Malder. 2007. ‘The acquisition of Basque ergative case: An experimental study.’ ASJU 41–2: 131–144.Find this resource:

Hunkin, Galumalemana Afeleti L. 2009. Gagana Sāmoa: A Samoan language coursebook. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Find this resource:

Hunt, Katherine. 1993. ‘Clause structure, agreement and case in Gitksan.’ PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Find this resource:

Hunt, Ruskin H. & Kathleen M. Tomas. 2008. ‘Magnetic resonance imaging methods in developmental science: A primer.’ Development and Psychopathology 20: 1029–1051.Find this resource:

Hutt, Michael & Subedi, Abhi. 1999. Nepali. London: Teach Yourself Books.Find this resource:

Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.Find this resource:

Hyams, Nina. 1989. ‘The null subject parameter in language acquisition,’ in K. Safir & O. Jaeggli (eds.), The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Reidel, 215–238.Find this resource:

Hyslop, Gwendolyn. 2010. ‘Kurtop case: The pragmatic ergative and beyond.’ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 33(1): 1–40.Find this resource:

Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnastopoulou, & Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. ‘Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect,’ Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 189–238.Find this resource:

Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. ‘Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond.’ Studies in Language 34: 239–272.Find this resource:

Iggesen, Oliver A. 2009. ‘Asymmetry in case marking: nominal vs. pronominal systems,’ in A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford University Press, 246–260.Find this resource:

Iluridze, Ketevan. 2006. ‘saxelta bruneba XIX sauk’unis I naxevris kartuli enis gramat’ik’ebši’ [‘Noun declension in Georgian grammars from the first half of the 19th century’]. PhD thesis, Arn. Chikobava Institute of Linguistics, Tbilisi.Find this resource:

Imanishi, Yusuke. 2014. ‘Default ergative.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Find this resource:

(p. 1186) Imedadze, Natela & Kevin Tuite. 1992. ‘The acquisition of Georgian,’ in Dan Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. III. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 39–109.Find this resource:

Indefrey, Peter. 2007. ‘Brain-imaging studies of language production,’ in M. Gaskell (ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 547–564.Find this resource:

Ionin, Tania. 2006. ‘This is definitely specific: specificity and definiteness in article systems.’ Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234.Find this resource:

Ippolito, Michaela. 2000. ‘Remarks on the argument structure of causatives.’ MS, MIT.Find this resource:

Jacobs, Joachim 2001. ‘The dimensions of topic-comment.’ Linguistics 39: 641–681.Find this resource:

Jacques, Guillaume. 2010. ‘The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong.’ Language and Linguistics 11(1): 127–157.Find this resource:

Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. ‘Parts and boundaries.’ Cognition 41: 9–45.Find this resource:

Jacobsen, Thomas. 2000. ‘Characteristics of processing morphological structural and inherent case in language comprehension.’ PhD dissertation, Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience Leipzig.Find this resource:

Jacobsen, William H. 1972. ‘Nominative–ergative syncretism in Basque.’ Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo 6: 67–109.Find this resource:

Jaeger, T. Florian & Neal Snider. 2008. ‘Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity,’ Cognitive science conference proceedings. Washington, DC, 1061–1066.Find this resource:

Jäger, Gerhard. 2007. ‘Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study.’ Language, 74–109.Find this resource:

Jahani, Carina. 2015. ‘Complex predicates and the issue of transitivity: The case of Southern Balochi.’ In Iván Szántó (ed.), From Aṣl to Zā’id: Essays in honour of Éva M. Jeremiás. Piliscsaba: The Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, 79–105.Find this resource:

Jahani, Carina & Agnes Korn. 2009. ‘Balochi,’ in Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages. London: Routledge, 634–692.Find this resource:

Jahani, Carina & Agnes Korn (eds.), 2003. The Baloch and their neighbours: Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 75–111.Find this resource:

Jakobson, Roman. 1936. ‘Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus,’ Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague VI, 240–299. [repr. in E. Hamp et al. (eds.), 1966. Readings in linguistics II, 51–89]Find this resource:

Jamison, Stephanie. 1976. ‘Functional ambiguity and syntactic change: The Sanskrit accusative,’ in Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, 12th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, 126–135.Find this resource:

Jamison, Stephanie. 1979a. ‘The case of the agent in Indo-European.’ Die Sprache 25: 129–143.Find this resource:

Jamison, Stephanie. 1979b. ‘Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic and Indo-European.’ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196–219.Find this resource:

Jamison, Stephanie. 2000. ‘Lurching towards ergativity: Expressions of agency in the Niya documents.’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63: 64–80.Find this resource:

Jamison, Stephanie & Michael Witzel. 2002. ‘Vedic Hinduism.’ http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/∼witzel/vedica.pdf

Janashvili, M. G. 1906. Kartuli gramat’ik’a. T’pilisi: Elektrombech’davi Shroma.Find this resource:

Jastrow, Otto. 1985. Laut- Und Formenlehre Des Neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin Im Ṭūr ʿAbdīn, vol. 3. Wiesbaden: HarrassowitzFind this resource:

Jastrow, Otto. 1988. Der Neuaramäische Dialekt Von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Semitica viva Bd. 3. Wiesbaden: O. HarrassowitzFind this resource:

Jastrow, Otto. 1994. Der Neuaramäische Dialekt Von Mlaḥsô. Semitica viva 14. Wiesbaden: HarrassowitzFind this resource:

(p. 1187) Jegerski, Jill. 2014. ‘Self-paced reading,’ in J. Jegerski & B. Van Patten (eds.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, 20–49.Find this resource:

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. ‘Empty categories, case, and configurationality.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.Find this resource:

Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. ‘Ergativity and argument type,’ in J.D. Bobaljik & C. Phillips (eds.), Papers on case and agreement 1, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 15–42.Find this resource:

Jenny, Mathias, & San San Hnin Tun. 2013. ‘Differential subject marking without ergativity: The case of colloquial Burmese.’ Studies in Language 4: 693–735.Find this resource:

Jensen, John T. & Alana Johns. 1989. ‘The morphosyntax of Eskimo causatives,’ in D.B. Gerdts & K. Michelson (eds.), Theoretical perspectives on Native American languages. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 209–229.Find this resource:

Job, Michael. 1985. ‘Ergativity in Lezgian,’ in Frans Plank (ed.), Relational typology. Berlin: Mouton, 159–173.Find this resource:

Johanson, Lars. 2009. ‘Case and contact linguistics,’ in Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 494–501.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 1987. ‘Transitivity and Grammatical Relations in Inuktitut.’ PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 1992. ‘Deriving ergativity.’ Linguistic Inquiry 23: 57–88.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 1996. ‘The occasional absence of anaphoric agreement in Labrador Inuttut,’ in J. Black & V. Motapanyane (eds.), Micro-parametric syntax and dialect variation, current issues in linguistic theory 139. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 121–143.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2000. Ergativity: A perspective on recent work. The first GLOT international state-of-the-art book. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 47–73.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2001a. ‘Ergative to accusative: Comparing evidence from Inuktitut.’ In J.T. Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, 205–222.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2001b. ‘An inclination towards accusative.’ Linguistica Atlantica 23: 127–144.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2006. ‘Ergativity and change in Inuktitut,’ in A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, studies in natural language & linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Springer, 293–311.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2007a. ‘Ergativity in Inuktitut: Varying views.’ Presented at the MIT Ergativity Seminar, MIT.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2007b. ‘Restricting noun incorporation: Root movement.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(3): 535–576.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. 2013. ‘Ergativity lives: Eastern Canadian Inuktitut and clitic doubling.’ Paper presented at the Canadian Linguistic Association, Victoria, BC.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana. [in press]. ‘Anaphoric arguments in Unangax and Eastern Canadian Inuktitut,’ Studies in Inuit linguistics: In honor of Michael Fortescue. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, 91–103.Find this resource:

Johns, Alana, Diane Massam, & Juvenal Ndayiragije. (eds.). 2006. Ergativity: Emerging issues. Dordrecht & Berlin: Springer.Find this resource:

Johnson, Kyle. 1991. ‘Object positions.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.Find this resource:

Johnson, Rodney Charles. 1992. ‘The Limits of grammar: Syntax and lexicon in spoken Burmese.’ PhD, thesis, University of Michigan.Find this resource:

Joswig, Andreas. 2011. ‘A brief grammar of the Majang language.’ Unpublished MS.Find this resource:

Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen − eine Korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Find this resource:

(p. 1188) Jukes, Anthony. 2013. ‘Voice, valence and focus in Makassarese.’ Proceedings of the workshop on Indonesian-type voice systems, 54, NUSA. TUFS, 101–121.Find this resource:

Just, Marcel A. & Patricia A. Carpenter. 1980. ‘A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.’ Psychological Review 87: 329–354.Find this resource:

Kaan, Edith. 2007. ‘Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview.’ Language and Linguistics Compass 1(6): 571–591.Find this resource:

Kaan, Edith & Tamara Y. Swaab. 2002. ‘The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences.Find this resource:

Kachru, Yamuna. 1978. ‘On ergativity in selected South Asian languages.’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8(1): 111–127.Find this resource:

Kachru, Yamuna. 1981. ‘Transitivity and volitionality in Hindi.’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11: 181–193.Find this resource:

Kachru, Yamuna. 1987. ‘Ergativity, subjecthood and topicality and Hindi–Urdu.’ Lingua 71: 223–238.Find this resource:

Kachru, Yamuna & Rajeshwari Pandharipande. 1978. ‘Ergativity in selected South Asian languages.’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8: 111–127.Find this resource:

Kaldani, Maksime. 1978. ‘Aorist’is c’armoeba svanurši’ [‘Formation of the aorist in Svan’]. Ibero-k’avkasiuri enatmecniereba 20: 150–161.Find this resource:

Kalin, Laura. 2014. ‘Aspect and argument licensing in Neo-Aramaic.’ PhD dissertation, UCLA.Find this resource:

Kalin, Laura & Coppe van Urk. 2015. ‘Aspect splits without ergativity: Agreement asymmetries in Neo-Aramaic.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33: 659–702.Find this resource:

Kalmár, Ivan. 1979. Case and context in Inuktitut (Eskimo). Ottawa, Ontario: National Museums of Canada.Find this resource:

Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian, & Donald Stilo (eds.). 2008. Aspects of Iranian linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Find this resource:

Karimi, Yadgar. 2010. ‘Unaccusative transitives and the Person-Case Constraint effects in Kurdish.’ Lingua 120(3): 693–716.Find this resource:

K’art’ozia, Guram, Rusudan Gersamia, Maia Lomia, & Taia Cxadaia. 2010. Megrulis lingvist’uri analizi. Tbilisi: Meridiani.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2005. ‘Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog,’ in I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies (Pacific Linguistics, 57). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU, 175–196.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2008. ‘South Sulawesi pronominal clitics: Form, function and position.’ Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 10-ICAL Pronoun Papers: 13–65.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2009a. ‘Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study.’ Theoretical Linguistics 35: 1–49.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2009b. ‘Austronesian typology and the nominalist hypothesis,’ in Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust (Pacific Linguistics). Canberra: ANU Press.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2009c. ‘On the Proto-Austronesian morphemes *pa-, *<r> and *<ŋ>.’ Paper presented at ICAL XI, Aussois.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2011. ‘Exclamatives and temporal nominalizations in Austronesian,’ in Foong Ha Yap & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. 2012. ‘Pan *ka- and predicate classes.’ Paper presented at AFLA 19, Academica Sinica, Taiwan.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Daniel. [forthcoming]. ‘Response to commentators.’ Theoretical Linguistics.Find this resource:

(p. 1189) Kaufman, Terrence. 1976a. ‘Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and associated areas of Meso-America.’ World Archaeology 8: 101–118.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Terrence. 1976b. Proyecto de Alfabetos y Ortografías para Escribir las Lenguas Mayances. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educación.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Terrence. 1990a. ‘Algunos rasgos estructurales de los idiomas Mayances,’ in N.C. England & S.R. Elliott (eds.), Lecturas sobre la lingüística Maya. Antigua, Guatemala: CIRMA, 59–114.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Terrence. 1990b. ‘Language history in South America: What we know and how to know more,’ in Doris Payne (ed.), Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages. Austin: University of Texas Press, 13–73.Find this resource:

Kaufman, Terrence & William M. Norman. 1984. ‘An outline of Proto-Cholan phonology, morphology and vocabulary,’ in John. S. Justeson & Lyle R. Campbell (eds.), Phoneticism in Mayan hieroglyphic writing. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 77–166.Find this resource:

Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource: