Article published in:
Valence Changes in Zapotec: Synchrony, diachrony, typology
Edited by Natalie Operstein and Aaron Huey Sonnenschein
[Typological Studies in Language 110] 2015
► pp. 16
Arka, I Wayan & Ross, Malcolm
(eds) 2005The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2007Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 239–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L
1988The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Explaining Language Universals, John Hawkins (ed.), 350-379. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
(eds) 2000Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, Hans & Daniel, Jacob
(eds) 1998Transitivität und Diathese in romanischen Sprachen [Linguistische Arbeiten 392]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H
1969Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Substance and Structure of Language, Jaan Puhvel (ed.), 147–203. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
1979Rethinking linguistics diachronically. Language 55(2): 275-290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guxman, Mirra Moiseevna
1964Razvitie zalogovyx protivopostavlenij v germanskix jazykax: Opyt istoriko-tipologičeskogo issledovanija rodstvennyx jazykov (The development of voice oppositions in Germanic languages: an historic and typological study of genetically related languages). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M
1966Are there universals of linguistic change? In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 30–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2002Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Åbo: Åbo Akademis Tryckeri.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1968Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds), 171-202. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid
2010Bridging typology and diachrony: a preliminary questionnaire for a diachronic typological study of voice and valency-changing categories. In Problemy grammatiki i tipologii: sbornik statej pamjati Vladimira Petroviča Nedjalkova (1928–2009) (Issues in grammar and typology: a memorial volume for Vladimir Nedjalkov),Valentin F. Vydrin, Sergej Ju. Dmitrenko, Natal’ja M. Zaika, Sergej S. Saj, Nina R. Sumbatova & Viktor S. Xrakovskij (eds), 139-163. Moscow: Znak.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1998Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (with the assistance of Emma Š. Geniušienė & Zlatka Guentchéva
) (eds) 2007Reciprocal Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan
2004Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2): 149-211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norman, Boris Justinovič
1972Perexodnost’, zalog, vozvratnost’ (na materiale bolgarskogo i drugix slavjanskix jazykov) (Transitivity, voice, reflexivity (evidence from Bulgarian and other Slavic languages)). Minsk: Izdatel’stvo BGU.Google Scholar
Operstein, Natalie
2014Origin of the Zapotec causative marker *k-: a diachronic-typological perspective. International Journal of American Linguistics 80: 99–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramat, Paolo
1987Linguistic Typology. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014Cognitive processing, language typology, and variation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5: 477-487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wouk, Fay & Ross, Malcolm
(eds) 2002The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.Google Scholar