Part of
Paradigm Change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond
Edited by Martine Robbeets and Walter Bisang
[Studies in Language Companion Series 161] 2014
► pp. 120
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
2007aTypological distinctions in word-formation. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 1–65. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2007bGrammars in contact. A cross-linguistic perspective. In Grammars in Contact. A Cross-linguistic Typology [Explorations in Linguistic Typology 4], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 1–66. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013Areal diffusion and parallelism in drift. Shared grammaticalization patterns. In Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 132], Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 23–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1989Historical and Comparative Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Corbett, Greville G
2010Introduction. Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In Defective Paradigms. Missing Forms and What They tell Us, Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett & Dunstan Brown (eds), 1–18. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baskakov, Nikolaj A
1970Areal’naja konsolidacija drevnejšich narečij i genetičeskoe rodstvo altajskich jazykov. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 43–53.Google Scholar
1974On the common origin of the categories of person and personal possession in the Altaic Languages. In Researches in Altaic Languages. Papers read at the 14th Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference held in Szeged, August 22–28, 1971, Louis Ligeti (ed.), 7–13. Budapest: Kiadó.Google Scholar
1981Altaiskaja sem’ja jazykov i ee izučenie. Moscow: Nauk.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1997Evaluative morphology: A search for universals. Studies in Language 21: 533–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekes, Robert
1995Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
1997Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In Yearbook of Morphology 1996, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 35–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bopp, Franz
1816Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt-am-Main: Andreäischen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire, Evans, Bethwyn & Miceli, Luisa
2008Morphology and Language History. In Honour of Harold Koch [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 298]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1998Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Poser, William J
2008Language Classification. History and Method. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang
1989Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10.Google Scholar
Dybo, Anna & Starostin, George
2008In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy. Aspects of Comparative Linguistics 3: 119–258.Google Scholar
Finch, Roger
1985Particles used with the ‘absolutive case’ in the Altaic languages. Journal of Turkish Studies 9: 27–36.Google Scholar
1987Verb classes in the Altaic languages. Sophia Linguistica 26: 41–61.Google Scholar
1999The case system of the Altaic languages. Surugadai University Studies 18: 87–112.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony
1995Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Frellesvig, Bjarke
2008On reconstruction of proto-Japanese and pre-Old Japanese verb inflection. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 175–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, Francesco
2008Borrowing of Inflectional Morphemes in Language Contact [Europäische Hochschulschriften 21: Linguistik, Band 320]. Vienna: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gruntov, Il’ja Aleksandrovič
2002Rekonstrukcija padežnoj sistemy praaltajskogo jazyka. Padežnye sistemy altajskich jazykov: Opyt diachroničeskoj interpretacii. PhD dissertation, Russian State University for Humanities.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2002Understanding Morphology. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey
1998Hermit crabs: Formal renewal of morphology by phonologically mediated affix substitution. Language 74(4): 728–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich
1991Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itabashi, Yoshizō
1988A comparative study of the Old Japanese accusative case suffix wo with the altaic accusative case suffixes. Central Asiatic Journal 32: 193–231.Google Scholar
1989The origin of the Old Japanese prosecutive case suffix yuri . Central Asiatic Journal 33: 47–66.Google Scholar
1990The origin of the Old Japanese accusative case suffix i . Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher Neue Folge 9: 152–173.Google Scholar
1991The origin of the Old Japanese genitive case suffixes *n / / na / ŋga and the Old Korean genitive case suffix *i in comparison with Manchu-Tungus, Mongolian, and Old Turkic. Central Asiatic Journal 35: 231–78.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Robbeets, Martine
2010Introduction. In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 1–5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D
2004Morphological reconstruction. In Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 1661–1667. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold
1996Reconstruction in morphology. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds), 218–263. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2003Morphological reconstruction as an etymological method. In Historical Linguistics 2001: Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, August 13–17, 2001 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237], Barry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (eds), 271–291. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormušin, Igor Valentinovič
1984Sistemy vremen glagola v altajskich jazykach. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S
1962The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1921 [1912] Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl Heinrich
1960Morphologische Probleme, I: Zum Genitiv und Accusativ. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1975Altajische Studien, II: Japanisch und Altajisch[Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 41(3)]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
1984Korean and Altaic. A preliminary sketch. Central Asiatic Journal 28: 234–295.Google Scholar
Miller, Roy Andrew
1971Japanese and the other Altaic Languages. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1981Altaic origins of the Japanese verb classes. In Bono homini donum. Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 16], Yoël L. Arbeitman (ed.), 815–880. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1982Japanese evidence for some Altaic denominal verb-stem derivational suffixes. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 36: 391–403.Google Scholar
1985Altaic connections of the Old Japanese negatives. Central Asiatic Journal 31: 35–84.Google Scholar
1993On some petrified case formations in the Altaic languages. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 46: 288–310.Google Scholar
Murayama, Shichirō
1957Vergleichende Betrachtung der Kasus-Suffixe im Altjapanischen. In Studia Altaica. Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8 August 1957, Omeljan Pritsak (ed.), 126–131. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nasilov, D.M
1978Formy vyraženija sposobov glagol’nogo dejstvija v altajskich jazykov (v svjazi s problemoj glagol’nogo vida). In Problema obščnosti altajskich jazykov, Orest Petrovič Sunik (ed.), 88–178. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1996The comparative method as heuristic. In The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds), 39–71. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1994Inflection and derivation. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, R.E. Asher (ed.), 1671–1678. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas
1960Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil 1, Vergleichende Lautlehre [Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie, 4]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1972Über einige Verbalstammbildungssuffixe in den altaischen Sprachen. Orientalia Suecana 21: 119–141.Google Scholar
1977On some Altaic case forms. Central Asiatic Journal 21: 55–74.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, Gustaf John
1952Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft, II, Formenlehre [Mémoires de la Société finno-ougrienne 104, 2]. Helsinki: Suomalai-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine
2005Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2007aHow the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic. Turkic Languages 11(1): 3–58.Google Scholar
2007bThe causative-passive in the Trans-Eurasian languages. Turkic Languages 11(2): 235–278.Google Scholar
2009Insubordination in Altaic. Journal of Philology 31. Ural-Altaic Studies 1: 61–79.Google Scholar
2010Transeurasian: Can verbal morphology end the controversy? In Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance [Turcologica 78], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 81–114. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2012Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: copy or cognate? In Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology [Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 2], Lars Johanson & Martine Robbeets (eds), 427–446. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
1991Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Starostin, Sergej, Dybo, Anna & Mudrak, Oleg
2003Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Street, John
1978Altaic Elements in Old Japanese, Part 2. Ms, Madison.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T
2001Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence
1988Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert Lawrence
1996Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Vovin, Alexander
1998Altaic so far? Migracijske Teme 15: 155–213.Google Scholar
2001Japanese, Korean and Tungusic. Evidence for genetic relationship from verbal morphology. In Altaic Affinities [Proceedings of the 40th meeting of the PIAC, Provo, Utah 1997], David B. Honey & David C. Wright (eds), 183–202. Indiana University: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar
2005The end of the Altaic controversy. Central Asiatic Journal 49: 71–132.Google Scholar
2008Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin [Center for Korean Studies Monograph]. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1953Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. New York NI: Publications of the linguistic circle of New York.Google Scholar
Whitman, John Bradford
2008The source of the bigrade conjugation and stem shape in pre-Old Japanese. In Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 294], Bjarke Frellesvig & John Whitman (eds), 159–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze
2017. Spatial interrogatives. In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188],  pp. 207 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. 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.