Reported speech and its extensions in Beserman

References

1. Agyagási, Klára
   2012 Language contact in the Volga-Kama area. Studia Uralo-altaica491. 21–37.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Andersen, Gisle
   1998 The pragmatic marker like from a Relevance-theoretic perspective. InAndreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Pragmatics & beyond: New series, vol.571, 147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.57.09and
   https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.09and [Google Scholar]
3. Buchstaller, Isabelle & Ingrid van Alphen
   2012 Preface: Introductory remarks on new and old quotatives. InIsabelle Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (eds.), Quotatives: cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (Converging evidence in language and communication research, vol. 15), xi–xxx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.02pre
   https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.02pre [Google Scholar]
4. Claridge, Claudia
   2013 The evolution of three pragmatic markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics141. 161–184. 10.1075/jhp.14.2.01cla
   https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.14.2.01cla [Google Scholar]
5. Cysouw, Michael & Jeff Good
   2013 Languoid, doculect and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language.’ Language Documentation and Conservation71. 331–359.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Davidse, Kristin & Lieven Vandelanotte
   2011 Tense use in direct and indirect speech in English. Journal of Pragmatics431. 236–250. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.022
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.022 [Google Scholar]
7. Dömötör, Adrienne
   2015 A mondván és az úgymond: diskurzusjelölő elemek keletkezése idéző szerkezetekből [Mondván and úgymond: The emergence of discourse markers from quoting constructions]. Magyar Nyelv1111. 21–37. 10.18349/MagyarNyelv.2015.1.21
   https://doi.org/10.18349/MagyarNyelv.2015.1.21 [Google Scholar]
8. Evans, Nicholas
   2013 Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. InDunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 66–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Ganenkov, Dmitry
   2016 Eccentric agreement can be monstrous. Presented at the39th GLOW Conference, Göttingen, April 5–8, 2016.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Güldemann, Tom
    2008 Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology [EALT]). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211450
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450 [Google Scholar]
11. Güldemann, Tom
    2012 Thetic speaker-instantiating quotative indexes as a cross-linguistic type. InIsabelle Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (eds.), Quotatives: cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary perspectives (Converging evidence in language and communication research, vol. 15), 117–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.08gul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.08gul [Google Scholar]
12. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
13. Kaplan, David
    1989 Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. InJoseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Karpova, Lyudmila
    2013 Leksika severnogo narechija udmurtskogo jazyka [Vocabulary of the Northern dialect of the Udmurt language]. Izhevsk: Izdatel’stvo Udmurtskogo Universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kasenov, Daniar
    2021 Indexical shift and monstrous agreement in Balkar. Presented at the18th Conference on Typology and Grammar for Young Scholars, St. Petersburg, Russia.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kelmakov, Valentin
    1998 Kratkij kurs udmurtskoj dialektologii [A brief course on Udmurt dialectology]. Izhevsk: Izdatel’stvo Udmurtskogo Universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Khachaturyan, Elizaveta
    2020 Marqueurs discursifs du dire (français, russe, norvégien): Des sémantiques lexicales différentes pour des stratégies énonciatives similaires? [Discursive markers of “say” (French, Russian, Norwegian): Different lexical semantics for similar speech strategies?]. Corela (HS-31). 10.4000/corela.11158
    https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.11158 [Google Scholar]
18. Kibardina, Tatyana
    2012 Sredstva vyrazhenija modal’nosti v udmurtskom jazyke [Means of expression of modality in Udmurt]. Mozhga: Udmurtskij universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Kirillova, Lyudmila
    (ed.) 2008 Udmurtsko-russkij slovar’: Ok. 50000 slov [Udmurt–Russian dictionary: ca. 50,000 headwords]. Izhevsk: Izdatel’stvo Udmurtskogo Universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Klumpp, Gerson
    2016 Semantic functions of complementizers in Permic languages. InKasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds.), Complementizer semantics in European languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 57), 529–586. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110416619‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416619-016 [Google Scholar]
21. Knyazev, Mikhail
    2022 SAY-complementizers and indexical shift in Poshkart Chuvash: With emphasis on communicative reception reports. Studies in Language461. 402–452. 10.1075/sl.19078.kny
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19078.kny [Google Scholar]
22. Kolyaseva, Alena
    2021 The divergent paths of pragmaticalization: The case of the Russian particles tipa and vrode. Journal of Pragmatics2011. 181–196. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.003 [Google Scholar]
23. König, Ekkehard
    2002 The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London / New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203212288
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203212288 [Google Scholar]
24. Lytkin, Vasiliy
    1962 Komi-Jaz’vinskij dialekt [Yazva Komi dialect]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Lytkin, Vasiliy
    1964 Istoricheskij vokalizm permskix jazykov [Historical vocalism of the Permic languages]. Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Matić, Dejan & Brigitte Pakendorf
    2013 Non-canonical SAY in Siberia: Areal and genealogical patterns. Studies in Language371. 356–412. 10.1075/sl.37.2.04mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.2.04mat [Google Scholar]
27. Messick, Troy
    2017 The morphosyntax of self-ascription: A cross-linguistic study. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
28. Nikitina, Tatiana
    2012 Personal deixis and reported discourse: Towards a typology of person alignment. Linguistic Typology161. 233–263. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
29. Podobryaev, Alexander
    2014 Persons, imposters, and monsters. PhD dissertation, MIT. hdl.handle.net/1721.1/87498
30. Schlenker, Philippe
    2003 A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy261. 29–120. 10.1023/A:1022225203544
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544 [Google Scholar]
31. Serdobolskaya, Natalia & Svetlana Toldova
    2010 Grammaticalization of the verb of speech in Finno-Ugric languages. InCongressus XI Internationalis Finno-Ugristarum. Pars VI: Dissertationes symposiorum ad linguisticam. Piliscsaba: Reguly Társaság.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Serdobolskaya, Natalia & Svetlana Toldova
    2014 Glagol rechi manaš v marijskom jazyke: osobennosti grammatikalizacii [The verb of speaking manaš in the Mari language: Peculiarities of grammaticalization]. Voprosy jazykoznanija61. 66–91.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Skribnik, Elena
    2022 Clause combining. InMarianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso, and Elena Skribnik (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 996–1017. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0053
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767664.003.0053 [Google Scholar]
34. Sorvacheva, V.
    (ed.) 1961 Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ komi-zyrjanskix dialektov [Comparative dictionary of Komi-Zyrian dialects]. Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izdatel’stvo.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Spronck, Stef & Daniela Casartelli
    2021 In a manner of speaking: How reported speech may have shaped grammar. Frontiers in Communication61. 624486. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.624486
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.624486 [Google Scholar]
36. Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
    2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology231. 119–159. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
37. Sundaresan, Sandhya
    2011 A plea for syntax and a return to first principles: monstrous agreement in Tamil. InProceedings of SALT211, 674–693. 10.3765/salt.v21i0.2626
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2626 [Google Scholar]
38. Tánczos, Orsolya
    2013 Hogy ... hogy? Kettős kötőszók az udmurt mondatban [That... that? Double conjunctions in the Udmurt sentence]. InKlára Agyagási, Attila Hegedűs & Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia21., 95–112. Piliscsaba: PPKE BTK Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszék.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Teptiuk, Denys
    2019 Quotative indexes in Finno-Ugric (Komi, Udmurt, Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian). Tartu University. hdl.handle.net/10062/66597
    [Google Scholar]
40. Teptiuk, Denys
    2021 Self-quotative markers in Permic and Hungarian. Linguistica Uralica571. 213. 10.3176/lu.2021.3.04
    https://doi.org/10.3176/lu.2021.3.04 [Google Scholar]
41. Teptiuk, Denys & Johannes Hirvonen
    2021 Perspective shift in reported discourse of Finno-Ugric languages. Presented at54th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Athens, August 31 – September 3, 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Tyshkevich, Natalia
    2014 Kosvennaja rech’ v besermjanskom dialekte udmurtskogo jazyka [Indirect speech in the Beserman dialect of Udmurt]. Presented at the2nd Workshop on Beserman and Mari studies, Moscow, February 28, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Usacheva, Maria, Timofey Arkhangelskiy, Olga Biryuk, Vladimir Ivanov & Ruslan Idrisov
    2017 Tezaurus besermjanskogo narechija: Imena i sluzhebnye chasti rechi (govor derevni Shamardan) [Thesaurus of the Beserman supradialect: Nominals and functional parts of speech (Shamardan village variety)]. Moscow: Izdatel’skie reshenija.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Usacheva, Maria N.
    2021 Dialogue-focused experiments in the field: Advantages and disadvantages (a Permic experience). InTatiana B. Agranat & Leyli R. Dodykhudoeva (eds.), Strategies for knowledge elicitation, 27–62. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑79341‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79341-8_3 [Google Scholar]
45. Vakhrushev, Vasiliy, V. Zakharov & L. Kalinina
    1974 Grammatika sovremennogo udmurtskogo jazyka. Sintaksis slozhnogo predlozhenija [Grammar of contemporary Udmurt. Syntax of the complex sentence]. Izhevsk: Udmurtskij NII istorii, ekonomiki, literatury i jazyka.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Van der Houwen, Fleur
    2012 The effect of genre on reporting speech: conversations and newspaper articles. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics11. 101. 10.7557/1.1.1.2294
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.1.1.2294 [Google Scholar]
47. Winkler, Eberhard
    2011 Udmurtische Grammatik [Udmurt grammar] (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 81). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Zakirova, Aygul & Alexey Kozlov
    2022 The emphatic identity particle =OK in the Volga-Kama Sprachbund. Presented atCongressus XIII Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Vienna, August 21–26, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Zubova, Iuliia
    2019 Variatsii v ispol’zovanii modal’nyx chastits v literaturnom udmurtskom jazyke i v besermjanskom dialekte [Variation in the use of modal particles in literary Udmurt and in the Beserman dialect]. Uralo-Altajskie issledovanija41. 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]