Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp. 606658
References

References

Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva
2013Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D. S.
2004Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Anetshofer, Helga
2005Temporale Satzverbindungen in altosmanischen Prosatexten. Mit einer Teiledition aus Behcetü’l-Hada’iq (1303 und 1429), Muqaddime-i Qutbed din (1433) und Ferec ba’de ş-şidde (1451) (Turcologica 57). Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Aydemir, İbrahim Ahmet
2009Konverbien im Tuwinischen: Eine Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung des Altai-Dialekts. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva
2019Possessors in switch-reference. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1), 81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris
1995Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2011Possessives and relational nouns. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.2, 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berta, Árpád
1996Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-Türkischen. Wies baden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bodrogligeti, András
2003Academic reference grammar of Modern Literary Uzbek. 2 vols. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bošković, Zeljko & Serkan Şener
2014The Turkish NP. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, 102–140. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brendemoen, Bernt & Éva Ágnes Csató
1987A syntactic analysis of Turkish gerundial clauses with subject control. In Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo Th. Verhoeven (eds.), Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics, 121–135. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron
1997Binding theory and switch-reference. In Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Atomism and binding, 31–49. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
2006Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Buğday, Korkut
1999Osmanisch: Einführung in die Grundlagen der Literatursprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor
1996Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1983Switch-reference in Huichol: A typological study. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 265–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Csató, Éva Ágnes & Lars Johanson
1992On gerundial syntax in Turkic. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46(2/3). 133–141.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Hilário
2016Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 55–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose
2013Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drimba, Vladimir
1973Syntaxe comane. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet
1986Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 195–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erdal, Marcel
1998Old Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 138–157. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2004A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser
1986Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ermolaeva, M. B.
2016 Podležaščee v raznosub″ektnyx konstrukcijax s deepričastiem na -p v kirgizskom jazyke i mišarskom dialekte tatarskogo jazyka. [Subjects in constructions with the p-converb in Kyrghyz and Mišar Tatar]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(1). 417–427.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Wiebke Ramm
2008Editor’s introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin Jr.
1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friederich, Michael
2012Uyghurisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Gadžieva, Ninel’ Z. & Boris Aleksandrovič Serebrennikov
1986Sravnitelʹno-istoričeskaja grammatika Tjurkskix jazuikov: Sintaksis. [Comparative grammar of the Turkic languages: Syntax]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1983Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake
2005Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Balkız Öztürk
2019Conditions on prominent internal possessors in Turkish. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 163–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V.
2015Tjurkskie konverby i serializacija: Sintaksis, semantika, grammatikalizacija. [Turkic converbs and serialization: Syntax, semantics, grammaticalization]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V. & Marina B. Ermolaeva
2015 O dvojstvennoj prirode tjurkskix kon verbov. [On the dual nature of Turkic converbs]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta 9. 42–56.Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Pamela Munro
1983Introduction. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, ix–xv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1995The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 1–55. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hazai, György
1973Das Osmanisch-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert: Untersuchungen an den Transkriptionstexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsány. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, Raymond J. & Nicholas Poppe
1963Kirghiz manual. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Imart, Guy
1981Le kirghiz (Turk d’Asie Centrale Soviétique): Description d’une langue de littérisation recente. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Irmer, Matthias
2011Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Isxakov, Fazyl G. & Aleksandr A. Pal′mbax
1961Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka: Fonetika I morfologija [Grammar of Tuvan: Phonetics and morphology]. Moscow: Izdatel′stovo vostočnij literatury.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars
1992Periodische Kettensätze im Türkischen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82. 201–211.Google Scholar
1995On Turkic converb clauses. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 313–347. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
1998The history of Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 81–125. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kahle, David & Hadley Wickham
2013Ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5(1). 144–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan
2013Deconstructing switch-reference. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3). 767–826. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kerslake, Celia
1998Ottoman Turkish. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 179–202. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2017Possession and partitives. In Hans Burkhardt, Johanna Seibt, Guido Imaguire & Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (eds.), Handbook of mereology, 440–444. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1997Turkish. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kreutel, Richard F.
1965Osmanisch-Türkische Chrestomathie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Krueger, John R.
1961Chuvash manual: Introduction, grammar, reader and vocabulary. Vol.7 (Uralic and Altaic Series). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice & Nicole Delbecque
1998The possessive dative in Romance and Germanic languages. In Willy Van Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds.), The dative: Volume 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies, 29–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian
2011Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3). 279–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia
2003Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 475–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, James Robert
1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mawkanuli, Talant
2005Jungar Tuvan texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Bloomington Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Andrew
2007Non-canonical switch-reference and situation semantics. In Amy Rose Deal (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 4: Semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas, 159–170. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
2010Subject domain restriction and reference-tracking. Proceedings of SALT 20. 269–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The role of contextual restriction in reference-tracking. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl H.
1995The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies. 2nd, revised edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1993‘‘Switch-reference”: Clause combining in Central Pomo. International Journal of American Linguistics 59(2). 119–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela
2016Chickasaw switch-reference revisited. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 377–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myler, Neil
2016Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko
2003Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
1995Some typological parameters of converbs. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 97–136. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevskaja, Irina
1988 Deepričastie na -p kak komponent osložnennogo i složnogo predloženija v šorskom jazyke. [Converbs in -p in simple and complex sentences in Shor]. In Maiia I. Čeremisina, Elena K. Shamina & L′udmila A. Shamina (eds.), Komponenty predloženija (na materiale jazykov raznyx sistem). [Sentence components (based on the languages of different structure)], 154–169. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SOAN.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina
1998Subject valency of Shor gerunds. In Lars Johanson (ed.), The Mainz meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 3–6, 1994, 234–243. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2008Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Christoph Schroeder, Gerd Hentschel & Winfried Boeder (eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond, 275–294. Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar
2010Converbs as depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz, 191–200. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1983Switch-reference in the Northeast Caucasus. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 245–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, András Bárány & Oliver Bond
2019Towards a typology of prominent internal possessors. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 1–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Andrew Spencer
2019Mixed categories: The morphosyntax of nominal modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, Albert
2018Connecting the typology and semantics of nominal possession: Alienability splits and the morphology-semantics interface. Morphology 28. 99–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ótott-Kovács, Eszter
2015The syntax of non-finite clauses in Kazakh. Szeged: University of Szeged PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan
2016Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 182. 88–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte
2007Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and genetic perspectives. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H.
1997Genitives: A case study. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 464–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev
2003Genitives, relational nouns and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 67–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pazelʹskaja, Anna G. & Andrej B. Šluinskij
2007 Obstojatelʹstvennye predloženija. [Adverbial clauses]. In Ekaterina A. Lyutikova, Konstantin I. Kazenin, Sergej G. Tatevosov & V. D. Solovjev (eds.), Mišarskij dialekt tatarzkogo jazyka: Očerki po sintaks isu i semantike. [The Mišar dialect of Tatar: Essays on syntax and semantics], 38–83. Kazan: Magarif.Google Scholar
Petrova, Tujana
2008Kratkij rusko-jakutskij slovarʹ. [A concise Russian-Yakut dictionary]. Yakutsk: Bičik, Republic of Sakha.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina
2013Switch-reference or coordination?: A quantitative approach to clause linkage in Lakota. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2). 153–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2019R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Róna-Tas, András
1991An introduction to Turkology. Szeged: Attila József University.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey
2019Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 198–227. Oxford: Ox ford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph
2004Depiktive im Sprachvergleich Deutsch-Türkisch: Eine kontrastivtypologische Analyse. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2012The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area: A diachronic and areal account. Lingua 122(4). 356–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1994An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 461–486. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte
2015The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley
1993Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tekin, Talat
1968A grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2007The concepts of constructional mismatch and type shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive linguistics 18(4). 523–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turan, Fikret
1996Old Anatolian Turkish syntactic structure. Cambridge: Harvard University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
1998Converbs in Old Anatolian Turkish: Amorpho-syntactic approach. Folia Orientalia 34. 175–181.Google Scholar
2000Adverbs and adverbial constructions in Old Anatolian Turkish. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, Elizaveta I. & Feliks A. Litvin
(eds.) 1986Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikat ivnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx sistem. [Structural types of polypredicative sen tences with synthetic verbal form in languages of different typology]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan
1998Defining converbs. In Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 273–282. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gijn, Rik
2016Switch reference: An overview. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 1–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Carl & Per Anker Jensen
2002A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2). 191–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Gabain, Annemarie
1974Alttürkische Grammatik. 3rd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Weisser, Philipp
2015Derived coordination: A minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David
1988Switch-reference in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Form, function and problems of identity. In Peter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, 141–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi
2003Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of Linguistics 16. 185–237.Google Scholar
Zieme, Peter
1999/2000Review of Alttürkische Handschriften by Dieter Maue. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 16. 294–297.Google Scholar