Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 46:1 (2022) ► pp.139
References (48)
References
Alonso de la Fuente, José A. 2018. Past tenses, diminutives and expressive palatalization: Typology and the limits of internal reconstruction in Tungusic. In Akos B. Apatoczky & Christopher Atwood (eds.), Philology of the grasslands. Essays in Mongolic, Turkic and Tungusic studies, 112–137. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2010. Notes on the Lithuanian restrictive. Baltic Linguistics 11. 9–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avrorin, Valentin A. 1961. Grammatika nanajskogo jazyka (A grammar of Nanai). Vol. 21. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Beloljubskaja, Varvara G. 1997. Služebnye slova v evenskom jazyke (Functional words in Even). Sankt-Petersburg: Institute for linguistic studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen. Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Mainz in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Bulatova, Nadezhda Ja. 2015. Emocional’no-ocenočnye suffiksy imennyh i glagol’nyh form v evenkijskom jazyke (Evaluative nominal and verbal suffixes in Evenki). Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XI(2). 60–77.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Morphology and word order reconstruction: Problems and prospects. In J. Fisiak, (ed.), Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 85–96.Google Scholar
Cincius, Vera I. 1982. Negidaljskij jazyk. Issledovanija i materialy (Negidal: explorations and materials). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
García-Castillero, Carlos. 2013. Morphological externalisation and the Old Irish verbal particle ro . Transactions of the Philological Society 111(1). 108–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerasimova, Anna N. 2002. Nanajskij I uljčskij jazyki v Rossii: sravniteljnaja harakteristika sociolingvističeskoj situacii (Nanai and Ulcha in Russia: a comparative characteristics of the sociolinguistic situation). Jazyki korennyh narodov Sibiri (Languages of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia) 121. 246–257.Google Scholar
Gusev, Valentin Ju. 2019. North Samoyed and the misterious Sprachbund. Paper presented at the Conference on Language Contact in the Circumpolar World. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, 25–27 October, 2019.
. forthcoming. O substrate eskimosskogo tipa v jazykah Severnoj Azii. Submitted to Voprosy Jazykoznanija.
Harris, Alice C. & Jan T. Faarlund. 2006. Trapped morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(2). 289–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 311. 279–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 721. 533–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazama, Shinjiro. 1996. Ulcha oral literature, a collection of texts. Tottori: Tottori Daigaku Kyōiku Gakubu.Google Scholar
. 2002. Ulcha oral literature 2 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 20). Osaka: ELPR.Google Scholar
. 2006. Ulcha oral literature 3 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 30). Tokyo: Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
. 2008. Ulcha oral literature 4 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 43). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
. 2010. Ulcha oral literature 5 (Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 49). Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Khanina, Olesya & Andrey Shluinsky. 2011. Emphatic transcategorial morphology: A cross-linguistically rare phenomenon in Enets. In Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten, & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation & Linguistic Theory, 31. London: SOAS. 171–181.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1996. Reconstruction in morphology. In Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method reviewed (regularity and irregularity in language change). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 218–263.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Majer, Marek. 2015. Russian kotóryj, Czech který, Slovene katę´ri: Vowel Variation in the Reflexes of Proto-Slavic *koterъ(jь) ‘which (of the two)’. Scando-Slavica 61(2). 154–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Sintaksis evenskogo jazyka (Even Syntax). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2000. The reordering of morphemes. In Spike Gildea (ed.) Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 231–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A Grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2017. Lamunkhin Even evaluative morphology in cross-linguistic comparison. Morphology 271. 123–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte & Ilja V. Krivoshapkina. 2014. Even nominal evaluatives and the marking of definiteness. Linguistic Typology 18(2). 289–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Taisija I. 1936. Ul’čskij dialekt nanajskogo jazyka (The Ulcha dialect of Nanai). Moscow/Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe učebno-pedagogičeskoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. & Xenia P. Semionova. 2016. K tipologii drevnearmjanskoj imennoj paradigmatiki: Instr.Pl (Towards a typology of Classical Armenian nominal paradigms: Instr.Pl). Voprosy jazykoznanija 51. 103–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnitskaya, Elena L. 2017. Delimitativnyj affiks -riktV- i fokusnaja častica (h)ələ v evenkijskom jazyke kak veršiny dvuh raznyh proekcij DelimP i FocP (The delimitative affix -riktV- and the focus particle (h)ələ) as the heads of two different projections, i.e. DelimP and FocP). In Ekaterina A. Ljutikova & Anton V. Zimmerling (eds.), Typology of morphosyntactic parameters 4. Working papers of the international conference TMP-2017, 209–221. Moscow: Pushkin State Russian Language Institute.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Valentin Ju. Gusev. 2016. Ul’čskij jazyk (The Ulcha language). In Vida Ju. Mikhaljchenko (ed.), Jazyk i obš’estvo. Enciklopedija, 513–515. Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Sunik, Orest P. 1982. Suš’estvitel’noe v tunguso-man’čžurskih jazykah (Nouns in Tungus-Manchu languages). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
1985. Ul’čskij jazyk. Issledovanija i materialy (The Ulcha language: Explorations and materials). Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tolskaya, Maria. 2015. Evaluative Morphology in Udihe. In Nicola Grandi & Lívia Körtvélyessy (eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology, 333–340. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1971. Grammaire de la langue georgienne. Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.Google Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta. 2002. Jest’ li klitiki v nganasanskom jazyke? (Are there clitics in Nganasan?) In Vladimir Plungian & Anna Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Pam’ati T. Yu. Ždanovoj. Jazyki mira. Tipologija. Uralistika, 465–475. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
. 2018. A grammar of Nganasan. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. & Fengxiang Li. 1998. The suffix -kan in Oroqen. Studies in Language 221. 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ždanova, Tat’jana Ju. 2000. Ob intraklitičeskih časticah v severno-samodijskih jazykah (na materiale neneckogo i nganasanskogo jazykov) (On intraclitic particles in Northern Samoyedic (the data of Nenets and Nganasan)). In Anu Nurk, Triinu Palo, and Tõnu Seilenthal (eds.), Congressus Nonus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Pars II1, 287–288. Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Geoffrey Pullum. 1993. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language 59(3). 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar