Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 39:1 (2015) ► pp. 123
References

References

Abadie, Peggy
1974Nepali as an ergative language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman area 1. 156–177.Google Scholar
Acharya, Jayaraj
1991A descriptive grammar of Nepali and an analyzed corpus. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Agresti, Alan
2007An introduction to categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Natural language and linguistic theory 21. 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antipov, Evgeny & Elena Pokryshevskaya
2010Applying CHAID for logistic regression diagnostics and classification accuracy improvement. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 18. 109–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald
2008Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2011Grammatical relations typology. In J.J. Song, The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–445. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Walther Bisang & Yogendra P. Yadava
1999Face vs. empathy: The social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3). 481–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1994Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen
2007Predicting the Dative Alternation. In G. Bourne, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tikaram Poudel
2007Distribution of the ergative in Nepali. Paper presented at the University of Leipzig.
Clark, T.W.
1963Introduction to Nepali. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978Ergativity. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1989Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
2008Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
1979Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to reduced transitivity. Studies in language 35(2). 311–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John & Jangman Hong
2009Effect displays in R for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models: Extensions to the effects package. Journal of Statistical Software 32(1). 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank
2014rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 4.2-0.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980Transitivity, grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D.W., T. Hosmer, S. Le Cessie & S. Lemeshow
1997A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Statistics in Medicine 16. 965. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis
2006Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutt, Michael
1997Modern literary Nepali: An introductory reader. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutt, Michael & A. Subedi
1999Nepali. London: Teach Yourself Books.Google Scholar
Kachru, Y. & R. Pandharipande
1979On ergativity in selected South Asian languages. South Asian languages analysis 1. 193–209.Google Scholar
Kutner, M., C. Nachtsheim, J. Neter & W. Li
2005Applied linear statistical models. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Landis, J.R. & G.G. Koch
1977The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, Aurélie & Christophe Croux
2006Bagging and Boosting Classification Trees to Predict Churn. Journal of Marketing Research 43(2). 276–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Chao
2007Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali. Lingua 117. 1462–1482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, William J., John L. Griffith, Harry P. Selker & Ralph B. D’Agostino
1993A Comparison of Logistic Regression to Decision-Tree Induction in a Medical Domain. Computers and Biomedical Research 26. 74–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin
1991The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. B.
2009Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William. B. & J.-C. Verstraete
2010Optional ergative marking and its implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 120(7). 1607–1609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morland-Hughes, W.R.J.
1947A grammar of the Nepali language in the Roman and the Nagri script. London: Luzac & Co.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2006Case semantics and the agent-patient opposition. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart. Case, valency and transitivity, 309–327. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John M.
2002The Nepali converbs: a holistic approach. In R. Singh (ed.). The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, 93–135. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Piper, Megan E., Wei-Yin Loh, Stevens Smith, Sandra Japuntich & Timothy Baker
2011Using decision tree analysis to identify risk factors for relapse to smoking. Substance Use and Misuse 46(4). 492–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riccardi, Theodore
2003Nepali. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 538–580. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rudolfer, Stephan M., Georgios Paliouras & Ian S. Peers
1999A comparison of logistic regression to decision tree induction in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Computers and Biomedical Research 32. 391–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert
2013Object-conditioned differential marking in Chintang and Nepali. Zurich: University of Zurich dissertation.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal studies; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Lars Hinrichs
2008Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: a multivariate comparison across time, space and genres. In Terttu Nevalainen, et al. (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & Harald Baayen
2012Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language variation and change 24(2). 135–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tchekhoff, Claude
1978Aux fondements de la syntaxe: l’ergatif. Paris: Press Universitaire de France.Google Scholar
Thapa, S.
2001Tuntuni ko ( About a bird ). New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A.
1982Nepali grammar and vocabulary. New Delhi: Asian educational services.Google Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje
2013Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics 51(3). 585–610. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K.
1976The notion of subject and the data from Nepali. In M.K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages, 270–285. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Wallace, William
1982The evolution of ergative syntax in Nepali. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12(2). 147–211.Google Scholar
1985Subjects and subjecthood in Nepali: An analysis of Nepali clause structure and its challenges to RG and GB. Illinois: University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
2019. Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:3  pp. e12311 ff. Crossref logo
Stroński, Krzysztof & Leonid Kulikov
2021. Typology and diachrony of converbs in Indo-Aryan. Diachronica 38:3  pp. 457 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 november 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.