Review published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 42:2 (2018) ► pp. 474486
References

References

Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova
2010Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 593–642.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & William Croft
2017Lexical categories: Legacy, lacuna, and opportunity for functionalists and formalists. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, pp. 179–197.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris
2012Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4). 614–633.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare & Christopher D. Manning
2001Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, 13–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
[ p. 485 ]
Comrie, Bernard
1978Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1986Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4). 808–845.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Handschuh, Corinna
2014A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 1].CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 2. (http://​journals​.linguisticsociety​.org​/elanguage​/constructions​/article​/view​/3073​.html)
2005Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 1–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1). 79–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingustic Typology 15(3). 535–567.Google Scholar
2014Comparative syntax. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Dan Siddiqi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 490–508. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Christa König
2010On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences 32(1). 87–131.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M. H.
1992Inverse languages. Lingua 88. 227–261.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press (http://​langsci​-press​.org​/catalog​/book​/88).Crossref
Malchukov, Andrej
2008Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena
2003A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2010Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Shinya Ito
2007Re-constructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(4). 273–292.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M.
1980Relational grammar. In Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax, 195–229. New York: Academic Press [Syntax and Semantics 13].Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara
2015Control. In Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax: Theory and analysis, vol. 1, 412–446. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK), 42].Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva
2012Referential effects on the expression of three-participant events across languages: An introduction in memory of Anna Siewierska. Linguistic Discovery 10(3). 1–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 486 ]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Haspelmath, Martin
2019. Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema :4, 2019  pp. 108 ff. Crossref logo
Haspelmath, Martin
2021. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics 59:1  pp. 123 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.