Chapter published in:
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 69106
References

References

Chumakina, Marina, Kibort, Anna & Corbett, Greville G.
2007Determining a language's feature inventory: Person in Archi. In Endangered Languages [Special issue of Linguistische Berichte 14], Peter K. Austin & Andrew Simpson (eds), 143–172. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
2004Oblique-case subjects in Tsez. In Non-nominative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60], Peri Bhaskararao & Kareumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), 113–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Forker, Diana & Khalilova, Zaira
2011Alignment typology, reflexives, and reciprocals in Tsezic languages. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 37: 32–51.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
2012Features. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Simon
1983Subject marking in some languages of Daghestan. Paper in Linguistics 16: 203–216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Lander, Yury
2012Relative clauses and processing complexity. Talk at the conference “Typology, Theory: Caucasus”. Istanbul.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin Jr., Robert D.
1984Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana
2011Grammatical relations in Hinuq. In Languages and Cultures in the Caucasus. Papers from the International Conference “Current Advances in Caucasian Studies”, Macerata, January 21–23, 2010, Vittorio Tomelleri, Manana Topadze & Anna Lukianowicz (eds), 553–567. Berlin: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
2013A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014aA canonical approach to the argument/adjunct distinction. Linguistic Discovery 12: 27–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bAre there subject anaphors? Linguistic Typology 18(1): 51–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Ergativity in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds), 851–872. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, Dimitry, Maisak, Timur & Merdanova, Solmaz
2008Non-canonical agent marking in Agul. In Differential Subject Marking, Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds), 173–198. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry
2013Diachrony of experiencer subject marking. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series 140], Ilja A. Seržant & Leonid Kulikov (eds), 231–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
In Press. Gender agreement alternation in Aqusha Dargwa: A case against information structure. Studies in Language.
Givón, Talmy
1997Introduction. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective[Typological Studies in Language 35] Talmy Givón (ed.), 1–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1991On the question of deep ergativity: The evidence from Lezgian. Papiere zur Linguistik 44–45: 5–27.Google Scholar
1993A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes
1996The syntax of personal agreement in East Caucasian languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(2): 127–148.Google Scholar
Kalinina, Elena & Sumbatova, Nina
2007Clause structure and verbal forms in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Finiteness, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 183–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira
2009A Grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E.
1985Toward a typology of ergativity. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some Approaches to Theory from the Field, Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds), 268–323. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1997Beyond subject and object: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1(3): 279–346.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Konstanty i peremennye jazyka. St. Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar
Ljutikova, Ekatarina A.
1997Refleksivy i èmfaza. Voprosy jazykoznanija 6: 49–74.Google Scholar
1999aÈmfatičeskoe mestoimenie wuž . In Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 620–629. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
1999bReflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur. In Reflexives: Form and Function, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 40], Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Walker [Curl] (eds), 227–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Anaforičeskie sredstva. In Bagvalinskij jazyk, Aleksandr E. Kibrik (ed.), 615–681. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher
1996Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Molochieva, Zarina & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2008Grammatical relations in Chechen. Talk given at the University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1980Control and ergativity in Chechen. Chicago Linguistic Society 16: 259–268.Google Scholar
2008Case in Ingush syntax. In Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in Honor of Bernard Comrie [Typological Studies in Language 81], Greville G. Corbett & Michael P. Noonan (eds), 57–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang
2007Personalität in den ostkaukasischen Sprachen. Munich Working Papers in Cognitive Typology 4. Munich: IATS University.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina
2011Person hierarchies and the problem of person marker origin in Dargwa: Facts and diachronic problems. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Finiteness in East Caucasian Languages, Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak (eds), 313–160. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
2013Tipologičeskoe i diaxroničeskoe issledovanie morfosintaksisa (na primere jazykov darginskoj gruppy). Doctoral dissertation, RGGU Moscow.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Mutalov, Rasul O.
2003A Grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina R. & Lander, Yury A.
2014 Darginskij govor selenija Tanty: Grammatičeskij očerk, voprosy sintaksisa [The Dargwa dialect of Tanti; A grammatical sketch. Problems of syntax]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul'tur.Google Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergei
2011Detelicization and argument suppression: Evidence from Godoberi. Linguistics 49(1): 135–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, Helma
1999Gender and person agreement in Akusha Dargi. Folia Linguistica 33(1–2): 153–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Dargi Folktales: Oral Stories from the Caucasus With an Introduction to Dargi Grammar. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.Google Scholar
2003Antipassive Constructions in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages. Ms, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Yamada, Hisanari
2013Reciprocal constructions in Avar. Lingua 126: 150–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Forker, Diana
2016. Floating agreement and information structure. Studies in Language 40:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Forker, Diana
2016. Gender in Hinuq and other Nakh-Daghestanian languages. International Journal of Language and Culture 3:1  pp. 90 ff. Crossref logo
Heaton, Raina
2020. Antipassives in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Annual Review of Linguistics 6:1  pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 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.