Part of
Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. GivónEdited by Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson
[Not in series 82] 1997
► pp. 115–
Edited by Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson
[Not in series 82] 1997
► pp. 115–
Are Grammatical Relations Universal?
Cited by
Cited by 41 other publications
Alfieri, Luca
2021. Parts of speech, comparative concepts and Indo-European linguistics. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 313 ff. 
Alfieri, Luca, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia & Paolo Ramat
2021. Linguistic categories, language description and linguistic typology – An overview. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 1 ff.
Baker, Mark & William Croft
2017. Lexical Categories: Legacy, Lacuna, and Opportunity for Functionalists and Formalists. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 179 ff.
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2018. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 200], ► pp. 1 ff.
Benedetti, Marina & Chiara Gianollo
2020. Criteria for subjecthood and non-canonical subjects in Classical Greek. In Historical Linguistics 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 350], ► pp. 30 ff.
Bickel, Balthasar, Taras Zakharko, Lennart Bierkandt & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2016. Semantic role clustering. In Advances in Research on Semantic Roles [Benjamins Current Topics, 88], ► pp. 51 ff.
Cauchard, Aurelie
2017. Describing lexical flexibility in Caac (New Caledonia). Studies in Language 41:2 ► pp. 521 ff.
Cristofaro, Sonia
2009. Grammatical Categories and Relations: Universality vs. Language-Specificity and Construction-Specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:1 ► pp. 441 ff.
2014. Is there really a syntactic category of subordination?. In Contexts of Subordination [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 249], ► pp. 73 ff.
Diessel, Holger
2019. The Grammar Network,
Dingemanse, Mark
2019. Chapter 1. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Ideophones, Mimetics and Expressives [Iconicity in Language and Literature, 16], ► pp. 13 ff.
Ehala, Martin
2006. The Word Order of Estonian: Implications to Universal Language. Journal of Universal Language 7:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
García-Miguel, José M.
2015. Variable coding and object alignment in Spanish: A corpus-based approach. Folia Linguistica 49:1
GOLDBERG, ADELE E.
2013. Explanation and Constructions: Response to Adger. Mind & Language 28:4 ► pp. 479 ff.
2016. Subtle Implicit Language Facts Emerge from the Functions of Constructions. Frontiers in Psychology 6
Haag, Marcia
2017. What determines constraints on the relationships between roots and lexical categories?. In Lexical Polycategoriality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 182], ► pp. 175 ff.
Haspelmath, Martin
2007. Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11:1
2020. The structural uniqueness of languages and the value of comparison for language description. Asian Languages and Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 346 ff.
2021. General linguistics must be based on universals (or non-conventional aspects of language). Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff.
Janic, Katarzyna & Charlotte Hemmings
2021. Alignment shift as functional markedness reversal. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 299 ff.
Johnston, Trevor Alexander
2019. Clause constituents, arguments and the question of grammatical relations in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Studies in Language 43:4 ► pp. 941 ff.
Kahane, Ahuvia
2019. Formal Diction, Intertextuality, Narrative and the Complexity of Greek Epic Diction. Symbolae Osloenses 93:1 ► pp. 234 ff.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Karin Michelson
2023. Semantic transparency and Oneida morphological parts of speech. Linguistics 61:1 ► pp. 197 ff.
LaPolla, Randy J.
2017. Causation as a factor and goal in typological comparisons. Linguistic Typology 21:3
Lazard, Gilbert
2015. Two possible universals: The Major Biactant Construction; the twofold notion of subject. Linguistic Typology 19:1
Loetzsch, Martin, Remi van Trijp & Luc Steels
2008. Typological and Computational Investigations of Spatial Perspective. In Modeling Communication with Robots and Virtual Humans [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4930], ► pp. 125 ff.
Mattiola, Simone
2020. Pluractionality: A cross‐linguistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass 14:3
2021. The non-universality of linguistic categories. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 279 ff.
McDonnell, Bradley
McGregor, William B.
2023. Chapter 9. Zero-marking or nothing to mark?. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 237 ff.
Nikolaeva, Irina
2010. Typology of Finiteness. Language and Linguistics Compass 4:12 ► pp. 1176 ff.
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki
2021. On the notion of unit in the study of human languages. In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], ► pp. 1 ff.
Sansò, Andrea
2003. Review of Croft (2001): Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Studies in Language 27:3 ► pp. 671 ff.
Shibuya, Yoshikata & Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
2016. Raffaele Simone and Francesca Masini: Word classes: Nature, typology and representations. Cognitive Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 289 ff.
VAN TRIJP, REMI
2014. Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: a cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition 6:2 ► pp. 242 ff.
Wiltschko, Martina
2021. Universal underpinnings of language-specific categories. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 59 ff.
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 march 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.