Article published in:
Advances in research on semantic roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 485511
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Hellan, Lars, Andrej Malchukov & Michela Cennamo
2017.  In Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 237],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Rissman, Lilia & Asifa Majid
2019. Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26:6  pp. 1850 ff. Crossref logo
Roberts, Seán G.
2018. Robust, Causal, and Incremental Approaches to Investigating Linguistic Adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo
van Lier, Eva
2016. Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages. Linguistic Typology 20:2 Crossref logo
Verbeke, Saartje, Leonid Kulikov & Klaas Willems
2015. Oblique case-marking in Indo-Aryan experiencer constructions: Historical roots and synchronic variation. Lingua 163  pp. 23 ff. Crossref logo
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2019.  In Argument Selectors [Typological Studies in Language, 123],  pp. 1 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.

References

References

Arkadiev, Peter M.
2008Differential argument marking in two-term case systems and its implications for the general theory of case marking. In Peter de Swart & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Differential subject marking, 151–171. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Barddal, Johanna
2008Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2011Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
2009Case marking and alignment. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Manoj Rai, Netra Paudyal, Goma Banjade, Toya Nath Bhatta, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Iccha Purna Rai, Novel K. Rai & Sabine Stoll
2010The syntax of three-argument verbs in Chintang and Belhare (Southeastern Kiranti). In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 382–408. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni Kanerva
1989Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study in factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bryant, David & Vincent Moulton
2004Neighbor-Net: An agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21. 255–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2008Case in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook ofcase, 59–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology oflanguage. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2005Alignment of case marking. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 398–405. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Andrej Malchukov
(eds.) In press Valency classes: A comparative handbook Berlin de Gruyter Mouton
Croft, William
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1989Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language 13. 257–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Are grammatical relations universal? In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givon, 117–143. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aleksandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking ofsubjects and objects, 53–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15. 535–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holisky, Dee A.
1987The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71. 103–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huson, Daniel H. & David Bryant
2006Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23. 254–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Leonard & Peter J. Rousseeuw
1990Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maechler, Martin, Peter J. Rousseeuw, Anja Struyf & Mia Hubert
2005cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package, http://​www​.R​-project​.org/.
Malchukov, A.
2005Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Mengistu Ambember & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: the case for case, 73–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie
2010Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Studies in ditransitive constructions: a comparative handbook, 1–35. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca
1985Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in inflections. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field, 324–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Molochieva, Zarina
2010Tense, aspect, and mood in Chechen. Leipzig: University of Leipzig PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
2008Why are stative-active languages rare in Eurasia? A typological perspective on split subject marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology ofsemantic alignment, 121–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel
2013The autotyp genealogy and geography database: 2013 release. Electronic database, http://​www​.uzh​.ch​/spw​/autotyp.
Onishi, Masayuki
2001Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Aleksandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 1–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V.
1997Marathi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999Cases and thematic roles. Tubingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Mismatches in semantic role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycholinguistic perspectives, 53–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina
2002Split intransitivity revisited: Comparing Lakota and Osage. International Jounral of American Linguistics 68(4). 381–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
2013R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://​www​.r​-project​.org.Google Scholar
Rokach, Lior
2010A survey of clustering algorithms. In Oded Maimon & Lior Rokach (eds.), Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook, 269–298.New York: Springer [second edition].Google Scholar
Sava, Graziano
2005A grammar of Ts’amakko. Cologne: Koppe.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey
2011Nekanoničeskoe markirovanie aktantov mnogomestnyx predikatov: opyt kvantitativno-tipologičeskogo issledovanija. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 7. 424–430 [http://​iling​.spb​.ru​/pdf​/alp​/alp​_VII​_3​.pdf].Google Scholar
Schikowski, Robert
2013Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zurich: University of Zurich PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2001Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985Remarks on Transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21. 385–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Issues in case-marking. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 2, 197–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & David P. Wilkins
1996The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agentivity revisited. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2011Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: University of Leipzig PhD dissertation.Google Scholar