oa Phasal polarity in Suansu

References

1. Allott, Anna J.
   1965 Categories for the description of the verbal syntagma in Burmese. Lingua151. 283–309. 10.1016/0024‑3841(65)90016‑1
   https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(65)90016-1 [Google Scholar]
2. Arokianathan, S.
   1987 Tangkhul Naga grammar. Vol.161. Central Institute of Indian Languages 1987.
   [Google Scholar]
3. van der Auwera, Johan
   1993 ‘Already’ and ‘still’: Beyond duality. Linguistics and Philosophy16 (6). 613–653. 10.1007/BF00985436
   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985436 [Google Scholar]
4. van der Auwera, Johan
   1998 Phasal Adverbials in the languages of Europe. InJohan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 25–145. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802610.25
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.25 [Google Scholar]
5. van Baar, Theodorus M.
   1997 Phasal polarity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Chelliah, Shobhana L.
   1997 A grammar of Meitei. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110801118
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801118 [Google Scholar]
7. Comrie, Bernard
   1976 Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Vol.21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. DeLancey, Scott
   1997 Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology11. 33–52. 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
   https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
9. DeLancey, Scott
   2001 The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics331. 369–382. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
10. Fischer, Jens G., Bastian Persohn, and Veronika Ritt-Benmimoun
    2023 Phasal polarity in Tunisian Arabic. Studies in Language. 48(1). 121–180. 10.1075/sl.22043.fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22043.fis [Google Scholar]
11. Gundel, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim
    2006 Topic and focus. InLaurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch8
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch8 [Google Scholar]
12. Hildebrandt, Kristine A.
    2004 A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. InCarol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 1–189. (Pacific Linguistics 557). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Ivani, Jessica K.
    2019 A first overview on Suansu, a Tibeto-Burman language from Northeastern India. Paper presented atthe 29th Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS 29), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan27–29 May 2019. 341.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Ivani, Jessica K.
    2022 Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads2(1). 65–93.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Ivani, Jessica K.
    2023 Suansu language from northeastern India: A field report. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area46(1). 138–163. 10.1075/ltba.22005.iva
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.22005.iva [Google Scholar]
16. Ivani, Jessica K.
    2024 Some preliminary notes on Challow, a Trans-Himalayan language from Manipur, India. Languages and Peoples of the Eastern Himalayan region (LPEHR). Special issue ofHimalayan Linguistics23(2).
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
    2008 Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: synchronic and diachronic issues: a study with special reference to the French phasal adverbs (Vol.191). Leiden: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hill, Nathan W.
    2012 ‘Mirativity’ does not exist: ḥdug in ‘Lhasa’ Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology16(3). 389–433. 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
19. Horn, Laurence
    1984 Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. InDeborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. König, Ekkerhardt
    1977 Temporal and non-temporal uses of ‘noch’ and ‘schon’ in German. Linguistics and Philosophy11. 173–198. 10.1007/BF00351102
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351102 [Google Scholar]
21. Kramer, Raija L.
    2017 Position paper on phasal polarity expressions. Unpublished manuscript. University of Hamburg. https://www.aai.uni-hamburg.de/afrika/php2018/medien/position-paper-on-php.pdf
22. Kramer, Raija L.
    2021a The expression of phasal polarity in African languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110646290
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290 [Google Scholar]
23. Kramer, Raija L.
    2021b Introduction: The expression of phasal polarity in African languages. InRaija Kramer (ed.), The expression of phasal polarity in African languages, 3–24. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110646290‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-002 [Google Scholar]
24. Lazard, Gilbert
    1999 Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?Linguistic Typology31. 91–109. 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
25. Lee, EunHee
    2008 Aspectual and focus adverbs in English and Korean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory26(2). 339–358. 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9035‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9035-3 [Google Scholar]
26. Löbner, Sebastian
    1989 Schon – erst – noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy12 (2). 167–212. 10.1007/BF00627659
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627659 [Google Scholar]
27. Löbner, Sebastian
    1999 Why German schon and noch are still duals: a reply to van der Auwera. Linguistics and Philosophy221. 45–107. 10.1023/A:1005432806111
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005432806111 [Google Scholar]
28. Matisoff, James A.
    1969 Verb concatenation in Lahu: The syntax and semantics of ‘simple’ juxtaposition. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia12(1). 69–120. 10.1080/03740463.1969.10415426
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1969.10415426 [Google Scholar]
29. Molochieva, Zarina
    2011 Aspect in Chechen. Linguistic Discovery9(2).104–121. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.397
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.397 [Google Scholar]
30. Mortensen, David & Jordan Picone
    2021 East Tusom. a phonetic and phonological sketch of a largely undocumented Tangkhulic language. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area44(2). 168–196. 10.1075/ltba.21009.mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.21009.mor [Google Scholar]
31. Noonan, Michael
    1999 Converbal constructions in Chantyal. 10.11588/xarep.00000183
    https://doi.org/10.11588/xarep.00000183 [Google Scholar]
32. Okell, John
    1979 ‘Still’ and ‘anymore’ in Burmese: another look at /theì/, /oùn/ and /tó/. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area4(2). 69–82.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Olsson, Bruno
    2013 Iamitives. Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. Stockholm: University of Stockholm MA thesis. Retrieved fromhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-91392
    [Google Scholar]
34. Ozerov, Pavel
    2018 Tracing the sources of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics1381. 77–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017 [Google Scholar]
35. Post, Mark W. & Robbins Burling
    2017 The Tibeto-Burman languages of northeast India. InGraham Thurgood and Randy J, LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages2nd edn, 213–242. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Plungian, Vladimir A.
    1999 A typology of phasal meanings, inAbraham, Werner & Leonid Kulikov (eds.), Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity: Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov (Studies in Language Companion Series 50), 311–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.50.21plu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.50.21plu [Google Scholar]
37. Romeo, Nicoletta
    2008 Aspect in Burmese: Meaning and function. (Studies in Language 96). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.96
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.96 [Google Scholar]
38. Tomlin, Russell S., Linda Forrest, Ming Ming Pu & Myung Hee Kim
    2011 Discourse semantics. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2nd edn, 37–63. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446289068.n3
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n3 [Google Scholar]
39. Treis, Yvonne
    2021 The expression of phasal polarity in Kambaata (Cushitic). InRaija Kramer (ed.), The expression of phasal polarity in African languages, 311–334. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110646290‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646290-014 [Google Scholar]
40. Treis, Yvonne & Martine Vanhove
    . Forthcoming. Converb constructions and clause chaining in Cushitic. InAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Hannah Sarvasy eds. Clause chaining in the languages of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Veselinova, Ljuba, Leif Asplund & Jozina Vander Klok
    . Forthcoming. Phasal polarity in Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. InAlexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper eds. The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian languages of South East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Yliniemi, Juha
    2023 Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers. Linguistic Typology27(1). 77–111. 10.1515/lingty‑2020‑0134
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-0134 [Google Scholar]