Review published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp. 791799
References

References

Aissen, Judith
1999Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4). 673–711. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2011The role of referential hierarchies in ergative allomorphy. Talk at the workshop Referential Hierarchies in Alignment Typology, 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea , Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September 2011. http://​www​.inslav​.ru​/images​/stories​/people​/arkadiev​/Arkadiev​_2ergative​_hierarchy​-sle11​.pdf
2017Multiple ergatives: From allomorphy to differential agent marking. Studies in Language 41: 717–780. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paducheva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov G. Testelets & Igor Yanovich
2008Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. The Stony Brook meeting (FASL 16), Andrej Antonenko (ed.), 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart
eds. 2008Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov
2008Case marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4). 565–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1981An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–667. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter
2007Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1972The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike
1992Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the genesis of ergativity in independent clauses. PhD Diss., University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Handschuh, Corinna
2014A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. http://​langsci​-press​.org​/catalog​/book​/18 doi:  Crossref
Haspelmath, Martin
2010Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
1977Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan
2010Case and agreement from fringe to core. A minimalist approach. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klokeid, Terry J.
197671. Lardil. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 550–584. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2005Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds.), 73–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 799 ]
2008Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118. 203–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marten, Lutz & Jenneke van der Wal
2014A typology of Bantu subject inversion. Linguistic Variation 14(2). 318–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Evan J.
1986A grammar sketch and comparative study of Eastern Mono. PhD Diss., University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2011Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999Cases and thematic roles. Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marc Richards & Malchukov, Andrej L.
(eds.) 2008Scales. (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86). Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig. http://​www​.uni​-leipzig​.de​/~asw​/lab​/lab86​/LAB86​.pdf
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric
1974The plurality split. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 19–21 1974, Michael W. La Galy; Robert A. Fox and Anthony Bruck (eds.), 657–671. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T.
2001Inflectional morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Inflectional paradigms. Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Arkadiev, Peter
2020. Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony. (Typological Studies in Language 121.) Amsterdam. Linguistic Typology 0:0 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.