Cover not available
Part of
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 1–38

Argument selectors

A new perspective on grammatical relations. An introduction

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

This article opens a volume of detailed descriptions of grammatical relations in thirteen languages. It begins by outlining new developments in the research on grammatical relations in the recent years. It then introduces the framework for studying and describing grammatical relations developed in Bickel (2010b) and Witzlack-Makarevich (2011). This framework served as a guideline to the contributors of the present volume in preparing individual accounts. I first present the various properties of arguments, which are understood as compound categories made up of both generalized semantic roles S, A, P, T, and G, as well as of their lexical and referential specifications. I then proceed to various conditions on grammatical relations and, finally, introduce the concept of argument selectors and illustrate their common types with examples from the languages of the present volume, as well as from other languages.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical relations: A brief history of research
  • 3.Arguments
    • 3.1Arguments vs. adjuncts
    • 3.2Generalized semantic roles
    • 3.3Predicate classes
    • 3.4Referential specifications of arguments
  • 4.Clause-level conditions
  • 5.Argument selectors
    • 5.1Argument marking
    • 5.2Phrase structure
    • 5.3Biclausal argument selectors
      • 5.3.1Argument selectors with control and raising verbs
      • 5.3.2Argument selectors with other types of clause combining
      • 5.3.3Relativization site as an argument selector
    • 5.4Diathesis alternation
    • 5.5Other argument selectors
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Appendix: Questionnaire
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.01wit
References
Anderson, Stephen R.
1976 On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 1–23. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D.
2007 Relative clause. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, 2nd revised edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 206-236. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artiagoitia, Xabier
2003 Complementation. In A Grammar of Basque, José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), 634–710. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2005 Case and control constructions in German, Faroese and Icelandic. Or how to evaluate marginally-acceptable data? Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 75: 1–36.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004 Hidden syntax in Belhare. In Himalayan Linguistics: Past and Present, Anju Saxena (ed.), 141–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Clause-hierarchy and Clause-linking: The Syntax and Pragmatics Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 51–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Iemmolo, Giorgio, Zakharko, Taras & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2013 Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna
2007 Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169–240. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Case marking and alignment. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 304–321. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2008 Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Scales, Marc Richards & Andrej Malchukov (eds),1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Choudhary, Kamal K., Schlesewsky, Matthias & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina
2015 The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PloS One 10(8). e0132819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Zakharko, Taras
2015 Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In Scales and Hierarchies: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds),7–43. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Zakharko, Taras & Iemmolo, Giorgio
2015 Exploring diachronic universals of agreement: Alignment patterns and zero marking across person categories. In Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective, Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds), 29–52. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yādava, Yogendra P.
2000 A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5): 343–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2014 Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38(3): 485–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birchall, Joshua
2014 Argument Marking Patterns in South American Languages. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1982 Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65 . Geburtstag , Otto Winkelmann & Maria Braisch (eds), 579–599. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues de l’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1982 Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 343–434.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida & Wechsler, Stephen
2015 Lexical-functional Syntax, 2nd edn. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadwell, Georg Aaron
2006 A Choctaw Reference Grammar. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred Philipp Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1981 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1985 Reflections on subject and object control. Journal of Semantics 4(1): 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Coreference and conjunction reduction in grammar and discourse. In Explaining Language Universals, John A. Hawkins (ed.),186–208. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1993 Argument structure. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 905–914. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2013a Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
2013b Alignment of case marking of pronouns. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, Malchukov, Andrej & Wichmann, Søren
2015 Introduction. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia , Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 3–26. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1998 Event structure in argument linking. In The Projection of Arguments, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 1–43. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray
2005 Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
(eds) 2008 Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55(1): 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Complementation: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds),1–48. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren
(eds) 2008 The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1991 Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1997 Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine
2009 Armenian [London Oriental and African Language Library 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick
2005 Grammatical Relations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Foley, William A.
2008 The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
1984 Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2013 A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, Shin
2007 On the control/raising ambiguity with aspectual verbs: A structural account. In Studies in Complement Control [ZAS papers in Linguistics 47], Barbara Stiebels (ed.), 159–195. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol
2007 A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Zúñiga, Fernando
2016 Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics 54(4): 483–529.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1997 Grammatical relations: An introduction. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], Talmy Givón (ed.), 1–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Taylor, Bradley
(eds) 2013 Valency Patterns. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1990 The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1): 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
2014 Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Hartmann, Iren
2015 Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia , Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 41–72. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina
2006 A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando
2016 Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Schenkel, Wolfgang
1991 Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben, 8th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2005 The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2010 Topicality and differential object marking. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. PhD dissertation, University of Pavia.
2013 Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 66: 378–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I.
2001 The passive voice. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 899–916. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1976 Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 305–334. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1985 Relative clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 206–236. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
1979 Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55(2): 333–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Dryer, Matthew S.
2007 Passive in the world’s languages. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 325-361. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khrakovsky, Viktor
1979 Diathesis. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29(3–4): 289–309.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian
2010 A Grammar of Teiwa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Christa
2008 Case in Africa. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
König, Christa & Heine, Bernd
2010 Are there ditransitive verbs in ǃXun? In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 45–81. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1993 Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1993 Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63: 759–813.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984 Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1986 On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24(4): 663–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
1995 Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N.
(ed.) 1976 Subject and Topic. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liljegren, Henrik
2016 A Grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard
(eds) 2015 Valency Classes in the World’s Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard
2010a Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov, Haspelmath & Comrie (eds), 1–35.
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie
(eds) 2010b Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry
1981 Language Typology: Cross-linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor
1993 The inflectional category of voice: Towards a more rigorous definition. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 1-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006a Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2006b Calculus of possibilities as a technique in linguistic typology. In Catching Language, Felix Kofi Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Xolodovič, Alexandr
1970 K teorii grammaticheskogo zaloga. Narody Azii i Afriki 4: 111–124.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca
1985 Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some Approaches to Theory from the Field, Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds), 324–362. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith
1978 On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45(3–4): 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mous, Maarten & Mreta, Abel
2004 The comitative/conjunctive preposition na in Chathu (Pare), a Bantu language of Tanzania. South African Journal of African Languages 24(4): 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Tolskaya, Maria
2001 A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael Leon
1981 Barai Clause Junctures. Toward a Functional Theory of Interclausal Relations. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
Overall, Simon
2007 A Grammar of Aguaruna. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
2009 The semantics of clause linking in Aguaruna. In The Semantics of Clause Linking, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 167–192. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E.
1997 Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1968 Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1970 The two verbs begin . In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds),107–119. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A.
2006 Applicative Constructions. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1979 Ergativity. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2005 Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 438–441. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013 Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
2017 Antipassive. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 308–331. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Polome, Edgar
1967 Swahili Language Handbook. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999 Cases and Thematic Roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Mismatches in semantic role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds), 53–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja
2014 Symmetrical Voice and Linking in Western Austronesian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise
2015 When “you” and “I” mess around with the hierarchy: A comparative study of Tupi-Guarani hierarchical indexing systems. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 10(2): 347–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 A hierarchical indexation system: The example of Emerillon (Teko). In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience L. Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 63–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana
2015 A Grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert, Paudyal, Netra P. & Bickel, Balthasar
2015 Flexible valency in Chintang. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 669–7007. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2018 Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
2004 Voice. In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 2, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
1998 On nominal and verbal person marking. Linguistic Typology 2: 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Person. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Verbal person marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert W. M. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014 A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley
1993 Switch-reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Høskuldur
2007 The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Mark L. O.
2008 A Grammar of Eton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gijn, Rik & Jeremy Hammond
(eds) 2016 Switch Reference 2.0. [Typological Studies in Language 114]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
1980 On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50: 303–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3): 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 Pragmatics, ergativity and grammatical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 7(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J.
1997 Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2011 Typological Variations in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Seržant, Ilja A.
2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando & Bickel, Balthasar
2016 Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement. Linguistics 54(3): 531–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xolodovič, Alexandr
(ed.) 1974 Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij: Diatezy i zalogi. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando
2007 From the typology of inversion to the typology of alignment. In New Challenges in Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations, Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 200–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Bril, Isabelle
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice constructions (Northern Amis). STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Natalia Gurian & Sergei Karpenko
2023. Minimal participant structure of the event and the emergence of the argument/adjunct distinction. Studies in Language DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo
2022. Towards a typology of middle voice systems. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 489 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2021. Chapter 1. The multifaceted nature of the antipassive construction. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Just, Erika
2023. Chapter 10. Differential indexing and information structure management. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Just, Erika & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2022. A corpus-based analysis of P indexing in Ruuli (Bantu, JE103). South African Journal of African Languages 42:2 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
McDonnell, Bradley
2023. Universal quantifiers, focus, and grammatical relations in Besemah. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 422 ff. DOI logo
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2020. Linguistic system and sociolinguistic environment as competing factors in linguistic variation: A typological approach. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6:2 DOI logo
van Lier, Eva & Maria Messerschmidt
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice and valency constructions. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. List of Abbreviations. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. xv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Preface. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Copyright Page. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 september 2023. 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.