Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:1 (2019) ► pp.120–194

Two types of morphologically expressed non-verbal predication

ORCID logo | Scuola Normale Superiore
| James Cook University
| CNRS

The morphological expression of non-verbal predication is a geographically widespread, although not very frequent, typological feature. This paper highlights the existence of two radically contrasting types of non-verbal predicative inflection. Construction A has already been described in the literature. It consists of attaching person-sensitive inflection markers to non-verbal predicates, possibly extending this treatment to adverbs and adverbial phrases (locational and temporal), pronouns and quantifiers. This type is well attested in Uralic, Turkic, and Paleosiberian, as well as in some Amazonian language families (most notably Chicham), but it has also been pointed out for some sparse languages of Oceania and Africa. Such non-verbal person inflections diachronically stem from incorporation of conjugated copula elements. Construction B, by contrast, is much rarer and is described here for the first time. It also consists of a dedicated morphological form of the non-verbal predicate (limited, however, to nouns and adjectives), but such form stands out as morphologically lighter than any other form to be found in nouns or adjectives in argument or attribute position. While the latter forms carry some kind of case marker, the noun/adjective predicate merely consists (or historically did) of the word’s root. This type of construction can be found in the small Zamucoan family and still survives in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. Diachronic inspection of Semitic indicates, however, that this predicative strategy was possibly adopted in some ancient varieties, although at later stages it intertwined with the expression of referential specificity. The paper compares the two construction types, highlighting similarities and differences.

Keywords: non-verbal predication, nominal predication, predicate vs argument/attribute, copular clauses, typological linguistics, Amazonian languages, Arawak, Chicham, Chaco languages, Movima, Paleosiberian, Semitic, Tupí-Guaraní, Turkic, Uralic, Zamucoan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Setting the scene
    • 1.2Semantic classification of non-verbal predication
    • 1.3Structure of this paper
  • 2.Construction A
    • 2.1Prototypical construction A in Mordvin (Finno-Volgaic)
    • 2.2Prototypical construction A in Turkic
    • 2.3Construction A in Paleosiberian
    • 2.4Construction A in Amazonia and beyond
    • 2.5Non-prototypical construction A in Samoyedic and Arawak
  • 3.Construction B in Zamucoan
    • 3.1A threefold morphological distinction
    • 3.2Proper-inclusion predication in Zamucoan
    • 3.3Copula construction; identity and existential predication
    • 3.4Morphological and diachronic addenda, with a note on the indeterminate form
  • 4.Construction B in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.1Proper-inclusion predication in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.2Existential and possessive predication in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.3Identity predication in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.4Diachronic and areal addenda on the Tupí-Guaraní argument case
    • 4.5Interim summary
  • 5.Construction B in Semitic
    • 5.1Evidence of construction B in Akkadian and Aramaic
    • 5.2The decline of construction B in Semitic
    • 5.3Relics of construction B in modern Arabic and Maltese
    • 5.4Synopsis
  • 6.‘Deviant’ cases
    • 6.1Construction B in Saami (Finno-Saamic) and Nganasan (Samoyedic)
    • 6.2Construction A in Semitic
  • 7.General discussion
    • 7.1Two types of non-verbal predicative inflection
    • 7.2The role of omnipredicativity
    • 7.3Identity predication and predicative adjectives
    • 7.4Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 12 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17013.ber
References
Aasmae, Niina
2014 An introductory course of the Erzya language. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Paul Ariste Soome.Google Scholar
Adelaar, Willem F. H.
1997 O sufixo onomático e a preservação das consoantes do fim de raiz em Guarani paraguaio. Boletim da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística 201. 11–19.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2002 Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word. A cross-linguistic typology, 42–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2003 A grammar of Tariana, from north-west Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language contact and pragmatic notions: Tariana in its multi-lingual context. In José Camacho, Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo & Liliana Sánchez (eds.), Information structure in indigenous languages of the Americas: Syntactic approaches, 17–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 The languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Werner
1989 Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Lemos Pe. A.
1956 Curso de tupi antigo: Gramática, exercícios, textos. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria São José.Google Scholar
Beeston, Alfred F. L.
1984 Sabaic grammar (Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 6). Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Behnke, Anja
2010 Die Struktur der Nominalphrase im Tersaamischen. Berlin: Humboldt Universität MA thesis.Google Scholar
Berta, Árpád
1998 Tatar and Bashkir. In Lars Johansson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 283–300. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bertheau, Ernest
1843 Gregorii Bar Hebraei qui et Abulpharag grammatica linguae syriacae in metro ephraemeo. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco
2006 On the tense-aspect system of Bolivian Chaco Guaraní. In Wolf Dietrich (ed.), Guaraní y ‘mawetí-tupí-guaraní’. Estudios históricos y descriptivos sobre una familia lingüística de América del Sur, 105–167. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
2014 [2009] Ayoreo. In Mily Crevels & Pieter C. Muysken (eds.), Lenguas de Bolivia, Tomo 3: Oriente, 369–413. La Paz: Plural Editores. English version [Ayoreo (Zamuco). A grammatical sketch, 2009] at [URL] (30 March 2018.)
Blau, Joshua
2006 Some reflections on the disappearance of cases in Arabic. In Pier Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Loquentes linguis: Studi in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, 79–90. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Borges, Mônica V.
2006 Aspectos fonológicos e morfossintáticos do avá-canoeiro (tupi-guarani). Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Briggs, Janet
1972 Quiero contarles unos casos del Beni. Cochabamba: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano & Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Dirección Nacional de Antropología. 21 vols.Google Scholar
Buccellati, Giorgio
1968 An interpretation of the Akkadian stative as a nominal sentence. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 271. 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butts, Aaron M.
2013 Language change in the wake of empire: Syriac in its Greco-Roman context. Chicago: University of Chicago doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Cabral, Ana S. A. C.
1995 Contact-induced language change in the Western Amazon: the non-genetic origin of the Kokama language. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
2001 Observações sobre a história do morfema -a da família tupi-guarani. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 133–162. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Cabral, Ana S. A. C., Ariel P. C. E. Silva & Suseile A. Sousa
2013 Expressão do caso argumentativo em três línguas tupí-guaraní: asuriní do tocantins, avá-canoeiro e zo’é. Anais do SILEL. Simpósio Internacional de Letras e Linguística 3(1). 1–17.Google Scholar
Carvalho, Márcia G. P. de
2001 Sinais de morte ou de vitalidade? Mudanças estruturais na língua tembé: Contribuição ao estudo dos efeitos de contato lingüístico na Amazônia Oriental. Belém: Universidade Federal do Pará MA thesis.Google Scholar
Carver, Daniel E.
2016 The Akkadian stative: A non-finite verb. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 531. 1–24.Google Scholar
Castrén, Matthias A.
1858 Versuch einer jenissei-ostjanischen und kottischen Sprachlehre. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Chomé, Ignace
1958 [ante 1745] Arte de la lengua zamuca. Présentation de Suzanne Lussagnet. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 471. 121–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciucci, Luca
2016 [2013] Inflectional morphology in the Zamucoan languages. Asunción: CEADUC.Google Scholar
Ciucci, Luca & Pier Marco Bertinetto
2015 A diachronic view of the Zamucoan verb in-flection. Folia Linguistica Historica 36(1). 19–87.Google Scholar
2017 Possessive inflection in Proto-Zamucoan: A reconstruction. Diachronica 341. 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Possessive classifiers in Zamucoan. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Elena Mihas (eds.), Genders and classifiers: A cross-linguistic typology, 144–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
In preparation. Towards the reconstruction of Proto-Zamucoan nominal suffixation.
Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver
2015 Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy 381. 377–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
Forthcoming. Inverse-locational predication and other ‘existential’ constructions in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics.
Décsy, Gy
1970 Das Existentialverb in den prädikativen Fügungen des Selkupischen. In Wolf-gang Schlachter (ed.), Symposion über die Syntax der uralischen Sprachen, 50–64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Wolf
1986 El idioma chiriguano. Gramática, textos, vocabulario. Madrid: Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
2001 Categorias lexicais nas línguas tupi-guarani (visão comparativa). In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 21–37. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2018 Tupian Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. [URL] (30 March 2018.) DOI logo
Dixon, R. M. W.
2010 Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 21, 159–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, Rose M.
1988 Aspectos da língua kayabi. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística.Google Scholar
Fabre, Alain
2016 Gramática de la lengua nivacle (familia mataguayo, Chaco Paraguayo). München: Lincom.Google Scholar
Feist, Timothy
2010 A Grammar of Skolt Saami. Manchester: University of Manchester doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Fullilove, William
2014 Definiteness in Qumran Aramaic. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
García Martínez, Florentino & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar
1997 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study edition. Vol. 11. Leiden – Boston & Grand Rapids (Michigan): Brill & Eerdmans.Google Scholar
1998 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study edition. Vol. 21. Leiden – Boston & Grand Rapids (Michigan): Brill & Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Georg, Stephan
2007 A descriptive grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak). Kent, UK: Global Oriental. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon
1983 On Syriac sentence structure. In Michael Sokoloff (ed.), Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic literary tradition, 97–140. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.Google Scholar
1991 On predicative adjectives and Syriac syntax. Bibliotheca Orientalis 481. 716–726.Google Scholar
Guildea, Spike
2018 Reconstructing the copula and nonverbal predicate constructions in Cariban. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2007 External plural markers in Semitic: A new assessment. In Cynthia L. Miller (ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic linguistics presented to Gene B. Gragg, 123–138. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
2013 Case in Semitic. Roles, relations and reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina
2018 Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helimski, Eugene
1998a Nganasan. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 480–515. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1998b Selkup. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 548–579. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees
1992 Non-verbal predication. Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von
2002 Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 91. 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higham, Alice, Maxine Morarie & Greta Paul
2000 Ayoré-English dictionary. Sanford, FL: New Tribes Mission. 31 vols.Google Scholar
Huehnergard, John
1987 Stative, predicative form, pseudo-verb. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 461. 215–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 A grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
2017 Arabic in its Semitic context. In Ahmad Al-Jallad (ed.), Arabic in context, 3–34. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrow, Otto
1997 The Neo-Aramaic languages. In Robert Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic languages, 334–377. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2005 Der bestimmte Artikel im Aramäischen – ein Blick auf 3000 Jahre Sprachgeschichte. In Bogdan Burtea, Josef Tropper & Helen Younansardaroud (eds.), Studia semitica et semitohamitica. Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004, 137–150. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jensen, Cheryl
1998 Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 41., 399–618. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
1999 Tupí-Guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 125–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, Lars
1998 The structure of Turkic. In Lars Johansson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 30–66. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joosten, Jan
1989 The predicative adjective in the status emphaticus in Syriac. Bibliotheca Orientalis 461. 18–24.Google Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva
1998 Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 219–248. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kelm, Heinz
1964 Das Zamuco: eine lebende Sprache. Anthropos 591. 457–516, 770–842.Google Scholar
Keresztes, Lázló
1998 Mansi. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 387–427. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey
2008 The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar (31 vols.). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Remarks on the historical development and syntax of the copula in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Aramaic Studies 161. 234–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, Norbertus J. C.
2000 Nouns and verbs: the verbal nature of the Akkadian stative. Orientalia 691. 21–71.Google Scholar
Kraus, Fritz R.
1984 Nominalsätze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1972 Studies in Semitic grammar and metrics. Wrocław: Zakładim Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel
1994 Une grammaire omniprédicative. Essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CRNS Editions.Google Scholar
2004 The features of omnipredicativity in Classical Nahuatl. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 571. 49–69.Google Scholar
Lemaréchal, Alain
1989 Les parties du discours. Sémantique et syntaxe. PUF, Paris.Google Scholar
Magalhâes, Marina M. S.
2016 Os dois diferentes tipos de sintagmas nominais complexos com núcleo verbal estativo da língua guajá. In Francesc Queixalós & Dioney M. Gomes (eds.), O sintagma nominal em línguas amazônicas, 187–202. Campinas: Pontes Editores.Google Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna
2003 Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh. A contribution to a typology of polysynthesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meira, Sérgio
2006 Stative verbs vs. nouns in Sateré-Mawé and the Tupian family. In Grażyna J. Rowicka & Eithne B. Carlin (eds.), What’s in a verb?, 189–214. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev
2014 On the pre-Columbian origin of Proto-Omagua-Kokama. Journal of Language Contact 7(2). 309–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti
2011 Skolt Saami: A typological profile. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Ai-kakauskirja & Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 931. 111–145.Google Scholar
Mihas, Elena
2015 A grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Lise
2005 Copular clause. Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1999 The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morarie, Maxine
1980 Simplified Ayoreo grammar. Cochabamba: Publicaciones Nueva Vida (mimeo).Google Scholar
Morarie, Maxine & Janet Briggs
1985 Génesis erámi taningai. Cochabamba & Asunción: Misión Nuevas Tribus.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1997 The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Copular sentences. In Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdjik, Rob Goedemans & Bart Hollebrandse (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. 21, 1–23. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Müller, Ana & Luciana Sanchez-Mendes
2016 The semantics of bare nouns in Karitiana. In Francesc Queixalós & Dioney M. Gomes (eds.), O sintagma nominal em línguas amazônicas, 241–261. Campinas: Pontes Editores.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Galina A. Otaina
2013 A syntax of the Nivkh language. The Amur dialect. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins (translation of the Russian original). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina
2014 A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Theodor
1898 [1966] Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Overall, Simon
2018 Nonverbal predication and copula constructions in Aguaruna. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Ama-zonian languages, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overall, Simon, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea
(eds.) 2018a Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b Nonverbal predication in Amazonia: Typological and diachronic considerations. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 1–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pat-El, Na’ma
2009 The development of the Semitic definite article: A syntactic approach. Journal of Semitic Studies 541. 19–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E.
1997 Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, Germán
2015 A grammar of Wampis. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio
2005 Ripercussioni sintattiche in conseguenza dell’introduzione dell’articolo determinativo proclitico in semitico. Aula Orientalis 231. 175–184.Google Scholar
Praça, Walkíria N.
2007 Morfossintaxe da língua tapirapé. Brasília, Brazil: Universidade de Brasília doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc
2001 Le suffixe référentiant en émérillon. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 115–132. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2006 The primacy and fate of predicativity in Tupi-Guarani. In Ximena Lois & Valentina Vapnarsky (eds.), Lexical categories and root classes in Am-erindian languages, 249–287. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reinisch, Leo
1893 Die Bedauye-Sprache in Nordost-Afrika. Vienna: Gewold. 21 vols.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon D.
1996 Argumento e predicado em tupinambá. Boletim da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística 191. 57–66.Google Scholar
2001 Sobre a natureza do caso argumentativo. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 103–114. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon D. & Ana S. A. C. Cabral
2012 Tupían. In Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds.), The Indigenous languages of South America. A comprehen-sive guide, 495–574. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise
2002 My hammock = I have a hammock. Possessed nouns constituting pos-sessive clauses in Emérillon (Tupi-Guarani). In Ana S. A. C. Cabral & Aryon D. Rodrigues (eds.), Línguas indígenas brasileiras. Fonologia, gramática e história. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL, 392–402. Belém, Brazil: CNPQ & Universidade federal do Para.Google Scholar
2003 Morphosyntaxe de l’émérillon. Une langue tupi-guarani de Guyane française. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
2018 Nonverbal predication and the nonverbal clause type of Mojeño Trinita-rio. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 53–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Isabelle
2013 Nonverbal predication: Copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005 Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka
1998 The Saami languages. An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1988 Der irokesische Sprachtyp (Arbeitspapier 9). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Anne
2018 Between verb and noun: Explorations into the domain of nonverbal predication in Ecuadorian Secoya. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seki, Lucy
2000 Gramática do kamaiurá. Língua tupi-guarani do Alto Xingu. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.Google Scholar
2001 Classes de palavras e categorias sintático-funcionais em kamaiurá. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 39–66. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Souza, Patrícia O. B.
2004 Estudos de aspectos da língua kaiabi (Tupi). Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas MA thesis.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
1997 Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2013 Nominal and locational predication. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (27 December 2017.)
Stone, Gerald
1980 An introduction to Polish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tropper, Joseph
2001 Die Herausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Semitischen. Journal of Semitic Studies 461. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan
1966 Linguistic analysis: the non-Bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turunen, Rigina
2009 A typology of non-verbal predication in Erzya. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 561. 251–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Non-verbal predication in Erzya. Studies on morphosyntactic varia-tion and part of speech distinctions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki doctoral disser-tation.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Matthew & Rosemary Ulrich
2000 Diccionario I̵shɨro (Chamacoco) – Español / Español – I̵shɨro (Chamacoco). Asunción: Misión Nuevas Tribus Paraguay.Google Scholar
Vallejos, Rosa
2016 A grammar of Kukama-Kukamiria. A language from the Amazon. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Joshua K.
2014 A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wintschalek, Walter
1993 Die Areallinguistik am Beispiel syntaktischer Übereinstimmungen im Wolga-Kama-Areal. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wright, William
1871 Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, I. The Syriac texts. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Voigt, Rainer M.
1998 Der Artikel im Semitischen. Journal of Semitic Studies 431. 221–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus
see Heusinger).
Zaicz, Gábor
1998 Mordva. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 184–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bertinetto, Pier Marco
2021. Zamucoan Person Marking as a Perturbed System*. Studia Linguistica 75:2 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Ciucci, Luca
2020. Matter borrowing, pattern borrowing and typological rarities in the Gran Chaco of South America. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Ciucci, Luca
2021. How Historical Data Complement Fieldwork: New Diachronic Perspectives on Zamucoan Verb Inflection*. Studia Linguistica 75:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Ciucci, Luca
2021. How to restructure a grammatical category: the innovative person system of Chamacoco (Zamucoan, northern Paraguay). Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 may 2023. 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.