Article published in:
Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective
Edited by Eystein Dahl and Krzysztof Stroński
[Typological Studies in Language 112] 2016
► pp. 237258
References

References

Anderson, Stephen R.
1977On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 217–264. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bāhrī, Hardev
1981Sūr śabd-sāgar. Ilāhābād: Smṛti Prakāśan.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yādava, Yogendra P.
2000A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110: 342-373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bubenik, Vit
1989On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34(4): 377–398.Google Scholar
1993Morphological and syntactic change in Late Middle Indo-Aryan. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 21(3-4): 259–281.Google Scholar
1996The Structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
1998A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 165]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
Bynon, Theodora
2005Evidential, raised possessor and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(1): 1–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George
1976Subject in Sanskrit. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 1–38. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1972The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grierson George A.
1916Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IX, Part IV: Specimens of the Pahari Languages and Gujuri. Calcutta.Google Scholar
Hendriksen, Hans
1986Himachali Studies, III: Grammar [Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 48(3)]. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1986P-oriented constructions in Sanskrit. In South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani Kumar Sinha (eds), 15-26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E.
1996Kesar of Layul: A Central Asian epic in the Shina of Gultari. In Studies in Pakistani Popular Culture, William Hanaway & Wilma Heston (eds), 121-183. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel and Lok Virsa.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna
1980Aspects of Hindi Grammar. New Delhi: Manohar Publications.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna, Kachru, Braj B. & Bhatia, Tej K.
1976The notion of ‘subject. A note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Panjabi. In The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 79-109. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Ludmila V.
1995The development of patient-oriented constructions in Late Western NIA Languages. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 21: 15–51.Google Scholar
2000Typological evolution of Western NIA Languages. Berliner Indologische Studien (BIS) 13-14: 117–142.Google Scholar
2001Ergativity attrition in the history of Western New Indo –Aryan languages (Punjabi, Gujarati and Rajasthani). The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 159–184.Google Scholar
2006Sintaktičeskaja evolucija zapadnych novoindijskich jazykov v 15–20 vv. In Aspekty komparativistiki, Anna V. Dybo, Vladimir A. Dybo, & Oleg A. Mudrak & George S. Starostin (eds), 151–186. Moskva: Rosijskij Gosudarstvennyj Gumanitarnyj Universitet (Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta Vostočnych Kultur i Antičnosti: Vypusk VIII)Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie
2001La notion de sujet en hindi moderne constitue-t-elle une catégorie pertinente? Sur la dissymétrie entre catégories morpho-syntaxique, sémantique et discursive’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris XCVI(1): 311–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004aOblique main arguments in Hindi /Urdu as localizing predications. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Lanugage 61], Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 33–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004bA Grammar of Hindi. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari & Kachru, Yamuna
1977Relational grammar, ergativity and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua 41: 217–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John
1998Grammatical Relations in Pali and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pirejko, Lija A.
1968Osnovnyje voprosy ergativnosti na materiale indoiranskich jazykov. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Poudel, Tikaram
2008Ergativity in Nepali: A historical perspective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Case and Alignment in Indo-European University of Bergen, 10–11 December.
Šamatov, Azad N.
1974Klassičeskij dakxini. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’.Google Scholar
Śarmā, Śrīrām
1964Dakkhinī hindī kā udbhav aur vikās. Pryāg: Hindī Sāhitya Sammelan.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Rolf
1977Untersuchungen zum Absolutiv in modernen Hindi. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Snell, Rupert
1991The Hindi Classical Tradition: A Braj Bhāṣā Reader. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof
2011Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Ṭaṇḍan, Premnārayāṇ
1962Brajbhāṣā – vyākaraṇ kī rūprekhā. Lakhnaū: Lakhnaū Viśvavidyālay.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil
1995Burushaski converbs in their South and Central Asian areal context. In Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective, Haspelmath Martin & König Ekkehard, (eds), 487-528. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert, Jr
1993A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 82], Robert Van Valin Jr. (ed.), 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje
2011Ergativity and Alignment in Indo-Aryan. PhD Dissertation, Ghent University.
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 The Notion of Subject in South Asian Languages [South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2], Manindra K. Verma (ed.), 270–286. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Yadāv, Śankar Lāl
(n.d.). Ahīrvāṭī. In Hariyāṇā kī upbhāṣāe, Śārdā Sādhurām (ed.) 193 269 Caṇḍīgaṛh Nideśak, Bhāšā Vibhāg, Hariyāṇā 27444 Govt. Press, Chandigarh
Zoller, Claus P.
2008Genitive marking of subjects in West Pahāṛī. Acta Orientalia 69. 121–151.Google Scholar