Chapter published in:
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 2882
References

References

Abraham, Werner
1972Tiefenstrukturkasus und ihre Oberflächenrealisation bei zweiwertigen Sätzen des Deutschen. Leuvense Bijdragen 72: 1–12.Google Scholar
1988Ergative Subjekte, die Partitivlösung und die DP/np-Frage. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 29: 161–189.Google Scholar
1997The interdependence of case, aspect, and referentiality in the history of German: The case of the genitive. In van Kemenade & Vincent (eds), 29–61.Google Scholar
2000The structural and lexical space between reflexive binding and logophorics: Sundry paradigms of reflexives and anaphora. In Reflexives. Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zymunt Frajzyngier & Tracy Walker (eds) 75–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Bare and prepositional differential case marking: The exotic case of German (and Icelandic) among all of Germanic. In Case, Valency, and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Aandrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 115–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Misleading homonymies, economical pps in microvariation, and P as a probe. In Mapping Spatial pps. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax 6], Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 261–293. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012(Inter)subjectification or foreign consciousness /other’s mind alignment as synchronic and diachronic concepts of change? Conceptualizations and data fidelity. In Covert Modality, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 24–78. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
2013Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Grundlegung einer typologi-schen Syntax des Deutschen, 3rd edn [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 41]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2014The South German‒(High) Alemannic grammar differential. In Bavarian Syntax. Contributions to the Theory of Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 220], Günther Grewendorf & Helmut Weiß (eds), 305–336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth
2012The case differential: Syntagmatic versus paradigmatic case – Its status in synchrony and diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Nishiwaki, Maiko
2016Modal verbs in German and definiteness effects in verbal complements – Focusing on Modern Standard German sollen and Middle High German suln ‘shall’. In Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological, and Diachronic Variation, Susann Fischer, Tanja Kupisch & Esther Rinke (eds)., 244–277. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John
2001Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Müller, Gereon
2008Case features as probes. In Inflectional Identity, John F. Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds), 101–155. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef
1984Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1923Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Band I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heildelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto & Mitzka, Walther
(eds) 1958Heliand und Genesis, 7th edn [Altdeutsche Textbibliothek 4]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Benz, Anton
2013Ergativity and the object-oriented representation of verb meaning. In Events, Arguments, and Aspects. Topics in the Semantics of Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 152], Klaus Robering (ed.), 65–88, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna
2009Case marking and alignment. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 304–322.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
2001Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
1995Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
1994The projection of arguments. In Functional Projections [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17], Elena Benedicto & Jeff Runner (eds). Amherst MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985aEmpirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1985bMarkierung von Aktantenfunktionen im Guaraní. Zur Frage der differen-tiellen Objektmarkierung in nicht-akkusativischen Sprachen. In Relational Typology, Frans Plank (ed.), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 69], Dieter Wanner & Douglas Kibbee (eds), 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1998Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Ebbinghaus, Ernst A.
(eds) 1962Althochdeutsches Lesebuch, 14th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Chesterman, andrew
1991On Definiteness. A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1972Syntactic Structures [Janua Linguarum. Series Minor]. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
2001Again on tense, aspect, mood morpheme order and the ‘Mirror Principle”. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds), 137–155. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Denison, Norman
1957The partitive in Finnish [Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B 108]. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–616. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Shay, Erin
2003Explaining Language Structures Through Systems In-teraction [Typological Studies in Language 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2005A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 475–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Froschauer, Regine
2003Genus im Althochdeutschen. Eine funktionale Analyse des Mehrfachgenus althochdeutscher Substantive. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gewehr, Markus
2009Japanische Grammatik. Unter Mitarbeit von Sönke Grützmacher & Ku-niko Owada. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heindl, Olga
2009Negation, Modalität und Aspekt im Mittelhochdeutschen im Vergleich zum Slawischen. In Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik/SDG 77], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 123–170. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Narasimhan, Bhuvana
2005Differential case-marking in Hindi. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 321–345. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
(eds) 2008Differential Subject Marking [Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, roman
1957[1971]Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In Roman Jakobson: Selected Writings 2, 130–147. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kamper, Gergely
2006Differential object marking. The Even Yearbook 7: 2–19. Budapest: Department of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred
1982Finnische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Müller, Gereon
2008Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Scales [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86], Marc D. Richards & Andrej Malchukov (eds), 83–136. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans & Vincent, Nigel
1997Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Köpke, Klaus-Michael
1982Untersuchungen zum Genus der deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Linguistische Arbeiten 122]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Korchmáros, Valeria M.
1983Definiteness as Semantic Content and its Realisation in Grammatical Form [Studia Uralo-Altaica]. Szeged.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1997Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008DOM and two types of DSM in Turkish. In de Hoop & de Swart (eds), 79–111.Google Scholar
Kotin, Michail L.
2012Gotisch im (diachronischen und typologischen) Vergleich [Sprache – Literatur und Geschichte 41]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1992Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical Matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds), 29–54. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid & Lavidas, Nikolaos
2014Typology of Labile Verbs: Focus on Diachrony. Special issue of Linguistics 52(4).Google Scholar
Kwon, Song-Nim & Zribi-Hertz, Anne
2008Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84(2): 258–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar
1983Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 15]. Uppsala: A&W.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfried P.
1958On earlier stages of Indo-European nominal inflection. Language 34: 179–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
1991Grammatische Kategorien und sprachlicher Wandel. Erklärung des Genitiv-schwunds im Deutschen. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Linguistics (Berlin, 10.-14 August 1987), Part II, Werner Bahner, Jochen Schildt & Dieter Viehweger (eds), 1406–1409. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
1994Die Entstehung des Artikels im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 19: 307–319.Google Scholar
1999Gender in Old High German. In Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Vol. 1: Approaches to Gender [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 124], Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen (eds), 237–257. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
2000Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit [Studia Linguistica Germanica 55]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2012Partitives and differential marking of core arguments: A cross-linguistic survey. Ms, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas
2004In the Derivation Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation. A Study on the Syntax-morphology Interface. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Spencer, Andrew
(eds) 2009The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & de Swart, Peter
2009Constraints on case frames: Converging approaches. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 344–345.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2011Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121: 1265–1283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mori, Yoshiki
2012Funktionale adnominale Teilsätze (FANCs). Lecture University Munich, August 19.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf
1992Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1998Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrel (eds), 264–285. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Philippi, Julia
1997The rise of the article in the Germanic languages. In van Kemenade & Vincent (eds), 62–93.Google Scholar
Piskorz, Kinga
2011Entsteht ein bestimmter Artikel im Polnischen? In Geschichte und Typologie der Sprachsysteme/History and Typology of Language Systems, Michael L. Kotin & Elizaveta G. Kotorova (eds), 159–168. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
1997Aspect and Predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas
2001The interpretive value of object splits. Language Sciences 23: 425–451. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, Alain & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger
1980Specifying reference to the Subject. French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1): 97–202.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand
1917Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Richard
1992Die Opposition von Objektsgenitiv und Objektsakkusativ in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Syntax oder Semantik oder beides? Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 114(3): 361–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Ist der Genitivverfall im Deutschen überhaupt erklärbar? Paper University of Vienna, read in Stuttgart 16 December.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard
(ed.) 1960Tatian. Lateinisch und altdeutsch mit ausführlichem Glossar, 21st edn. Paderborn: F. Schöningh.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios
2013Differential subject marking in Pontic Greek: Case features and morphological realizations. Talk and handout at SLE/Societas Linguistica Europaea 2013 at Split, Croatia, on 21 September.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios & Kakarikos, Konstantinos
2013A feature-based analysis of Cappadocian Greek nominal inflection. Ms, University of Athens.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker
2007Attribute im Deutschen: Zu ihren Eigenschaften und ihrer Position im grammatischen System. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Attributive constructions, scrambling in the AP, and referential types. Lingua 120: 673–692. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker & Kremers, Joost
2013On the properties of attributive phrases in German. In Van de Velde et al. (eds), 161–186.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959[1965]Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
2015Elements of Structural Syntax, translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger
1985Dépendences et niveaux de représentation en syntaxe [Lingvistiæ Investigationes Supplemanta 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Martina
2012Genus, Derivation und Quantifikation. Zur Funktion der Suffigierung und verwandter Phänomene im Deutschen [Studia linguistica Germanica 114]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Paul
1976On the non-lexical expression of determinedness (with special reference to Russian and Finnish). Studia Linguistica 30: 34–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
2008Case patterns. In Optimality-theory Syntax, Géraldine Legendre & Sten Vikner (eds), 509–543. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Abraham, Werner
2019. What are the guiding principles in the evolution of language: Paradigmatics or syntagmatics?. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1:2  pp. 109 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.