Same yet different

References

1. Ackerman, Farrell & John Moore
   2001 Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ariste, Paul
   1968 A grammar of the Votic language (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 68). The Hague: Mouton & Co.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anttila, Arto & Vivienne Fong
   2000 The partitive constraint in optimality theory. Journal of Semantics171. 281–314. 10.1093/jos/17.4.281
   https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/17.4.281 [Google Scholar]
4. Belletti, Adriana
   1988 The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry191. 1–34.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Brattico, Pauli
   2012 Case assignment and phi-agreement in Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics251. 29–59.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Csirmaz, Aniko
   2012 The case of the divisible phase. Syntax15(3). 215–252.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Denison, Norman
   1957 The partitive in Finnish (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia B. 108). Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden kirjapaino.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries
   2016 Profiling verb complementation constructions across new Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics21(2). 192–218. 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des [Google Scholar]
9. Dryer, Matthew S.
   2013 Order of object and verb (v2020.3). InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. 10.5281/zenodo.7385533
   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533 [Google Scholar]
10. Ehala, Martin
    2001 Eesti keele baassõnajärjest [On the Estonian base word order]. InReet Kasik (ed.), Keele kannul, 24–41. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Ehala, Martin
    2009 Keelekontakti mõju eesti sihitiskäänete kasutamisele [The impact of language contact on the usage of the Estonian object cases]. Keel ja Kirjandus31. 182–204.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Erelt, Mati
    2015 Eesti ja soome keele lauseehituse võrdlemisest 1980. ja 1990. aastail [On comparing the syntax of Estonian and Finnish in the 1980ies and 1990ies]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja251. 23–34. 10.5128/LV25.02
    https://doi.org/10.5128/LV25.02 [Google Scholar]
13. Erelt, Mati
    (ed.) 2003 Estonian language (Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series 1). Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Erelt, Mati, Tiiu Erelt & Kristiina Ross
    1997 Eesti keele käsiraamat [The handbook of Estonian]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Erelt, Mati, Reet Kasik, Helle Metslang, Henno Rajandi, Kristiina Ross, Henn Saari, Kaja Tael & Silvi Vare
    1993 Eesti keele grammatika II. Süntaks. Lisa: Kiri [The grammar of the Estonian language II. Syntax. Appendix: Orthography]. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Erelt, Mati & Helle Metslang
    (eds.) 2017 Eesti keele süntaks [Estonian syntax] (Eesti keele varamu 3). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Erelt, Mati, Helle Metslang & Karl Pajusalu
    2006 Tense and evidentiality in Estonian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics201. 125–136. 10.1075/bjl.20.09ere
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.20.09ere [Google Scholar]
18. Etxeberria, Urtzi, Tabea Ihsane, Ilja Seržant, Petra Sleeman & Anne Tamm
    (eds.) 2019 Workshop proposal. Variation in the expression of partitivity and partitive expressions, 14th International Conference of General Linguistics (CILG2020). Sevilla, June 26th, 2020. Vienna: MS.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Falco, Michelangelo & Roberto Zamparelli
    2019 Partitives and partitivity. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics4(1). 1–49. 10.5334/gjgl.642
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.642 [Google Scholar]
20. Graën, Johannes, Dolores Batinic & Martin Volk
    2014 Cleaning the Europarl corpus for linguistic applications. InJosef Ruppenhofer & Gertrud Faaß (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th edition of the KONVENS conference, 222–227, Hildesheim: Universitätsverlag Hildesheim.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Greenwell, Brandon M.
    2017 pdp: An R package for constructing partial dependence plots. The R Journal9(1). 421–436. 10.32614/RJ‑2017‑016
    https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-016 [Google Scholar]
22. Gries, Stefan Th
    2021 Statistics for Linguistics with R. 3rd edition. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110718256
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256 [Google Scholar]
23. Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra Deshors
    2014 Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora9(1). 109–136. 10.3366/cor.2014.0053
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2014.0053 [Google Scholar]
24. Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra Deshors
    2015 EFL and/vs. ESL? A multi-level regression modeling perspective on bridging the paradigm gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research1(1). 130–159. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.05gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.05gri [Google Scholar]
25. Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors
    2020 There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies. ICAME Journal44(1). 69–96. 10.2478/icame‑2020‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2020-0003 [Google Scholar]
26. Grünthal, Riho
    2003 Finnic adpositions and cases in change (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 244). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Grünthal, Riho
    2023 Diachronic bottlenecks of the Uralic (ablative-)partitive. Linguistic Variation23(1). 124–156. 10.1075/lv.21003.gru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21003.gru [Google Scholar]
28. Habicht, Külli
    2001 Eesti vanema kirjakeele leksikaalsest ja morfosüntaktilisest arengust ning Heinrich Stahli keele eripärast selle taustal [On the lexical and morphosyntactic development of Old Written Estonian and the characteristics of Heinrich Stahl’s language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae. Universitas Tartuensis 10). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
29. Hakulinen, Auli & Fred Karlsson
    1975 Suomen akkusatiivi: funktionaalinen näkökulma [The Finnish accusative: a functionalist aspect]. Virittäjä791. 339–363.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hakulinen, Auli & Fred Karlsson
    1979 Nykysuomen lauseoppia [Syntax of Modern Finnish]. Jyväskylä: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy & Beth Levin
    1999 Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. InTanya Mathews & Devon Strolovitch (eds.), SALT IX, 127–144. Ithaca: CLC Publications. 10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v9i0.2833 [Google Scholar]
32. Heinämäki, Orvokki
    1984 Aspect in Finnish. InCasper de Groot & Hannu Tommola (eds.), Aspect bound: A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian aspectology, 153–177. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris. 10.1515/9783110846195.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846195.153 [Google Scholar]
33. Heinämäki, Orvokki
    1994 Aspect and boundedness in Finnish. InCarl Bache, Hans Basbøll & Carl-Eric Lindberg (eds.), Tense, aspect and action. Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 12), 207–233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883077.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883077.207 [Google Scholar]
34. Heller, Benedikt, Tobias Bernaisch & Stefan Th. Gries
    2017 Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal41(1). 111–144. 10.1515/icame‑2017‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2017-0005 [Google Scholar]
35. Hiietam, Katrin
    2002 Accusative – why not? Proceedings of the 11th Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics. Manchester: University of Manchester.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Hiietam, Katrin
    2003 Definiteness and grammatical relations in Estonian. Manchester: University of Manchester PhD dissertation.
37. Hiietam, Katrin & Kersti Börjars
    2003 The emergence of a definite article in Estonian. InDiane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics, 383–417. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Hint, Mati
    2017 Partitiivi laienemine aspektituks objektikäändeks [Expansion of partitive case in the Estonian language into a counterpart of Indo-European accusative]. Mäetagused691. 153–180. 10.7592/MT2017.69.hint
    https://doi.org/10.7592/MT2017.69.hint [Google Scholar]
39. Hoop, Helen de
    1996 Case configuration and NP interpretation. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Hoop, Helen de
    2003 Partitivity. InLisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot international state of-the-srticle book. The latest in linguistics, 179–212 (Studies in Generative Grammar 61). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110890952.179
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890952.179 [Google Scholar]
41. Huumo, Tuomas
    2003 Aspectual object marking with verbs of perception and cognition: A Finnish-Estonian study. InElsa González Alvares & Andrew Rollings (eds.), Studies in Contrastive Linguistics21. 223–228. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Huumo, Tuomas
    2010 Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish object. Journal of Linguistics461. 83–125. 10.1017/S0022226709990223
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990223 [Google Scholar]
43. Huumo, Tuomas
    2013 On the many faces of incompleteness: Hide-and-seek with the Finnish partitive object. Folia Linguistica47(1). 89–111. 10.1515/flin.2013.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.005 [Google Scholar]
44. Iemmolo, Giorgio
    2013 Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF – Language Typology and Universals66(4). 378–403. 10.1524/stuf.2013.0019
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2013.0019 [Google Scholar]
45. Ihsane, Tabea & Elisabeth Stark
    (eds.) 2020 Shades of partitivity: Formal and areal properties. Linguistics58(3). 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0078 [Google Scholar]
46. Ikola, Osmo
    1953 Viron ja liivin modus obliquuksen historiaa [On the history of the Estonian and Livonian oblique mood] (Suomi 106, 4). Helsinki: Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Ikola, Osmo
    1972 Partitiivi subjektin, objektin ja predikatiivin sijana [The partitive as the case of the subject, the object, and the predicative]. Kielikello51. 5–12.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Iva, Sulev
    2007 Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem [Inflectional morphology in the Võro literary language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitas Tartuensis 20). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus. dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/10062/4860/1/iva_sulev.pdf (1 January, 2010.)
49. Ivaska, Ilmari, Marta Kajzer-Wietrzny & Adriano Ferraresi
    2022 Formality in mediated and non-mediated discourse: Bringing together human judgements and corpus-driven detection. InMarta Kajzer-Wietrzny, Adriano Ferraresi, Ilmari Ivaska & Silvia Bernardini (eds.), Mediated discourse at the European Parliament: Empirical investigations, 29–61. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.6977040
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6977040 [Google Scholar]
50. Itkonen, Terho
    1979 Subject and object marking in Finnish: An inverted ergative system and an “ideal” ergative sub-system. InFrans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 79–102. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Kanerva, Jenna, Filip Ginter, Niko Miekka, Akseli Leino & Tapio Salakoski
    2018 Turku neural parser pipeline: An end-to-end system for the CoNLL 2018 shared task. Proceedings of the CoNLL 2018 shared task: Multilingual parsing from raw text to universal dependencies. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva
    1985 Suomen verbi-ilmausten kvantiteetista ja kvaliteetista [On the quantitative and qualitative aspects of Finnish verb expressions]. Virittäjä891. 429–446.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Kekki, Niina & Ilmari Ivaska
    2022 The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language: Applying the MuPDAR(F) approach. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research8(1). 67–96. 10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21006.kek [Google Scholar]
54. Kiparsky, Paul
    1998 Partitive case and aspect. InMiriam Butt & Willem Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Kiparsky, Paul
    2001 Structural case in Finnish. Lingua1111. 315–376. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(00)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
56. Klaas, Birute
    1996 Similarities in case marking in Estonian and Lithuanian. InMati Erelt (ed.), Estonian: Typological studies 1 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 4), 35–67. Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Klaas, Birute
    1999 Dependence of the object case on the semantics of the verb in Estonian, Finnish and Lithuanian. InErelt, Mati (ed.), Estonian: Typological studies 3 (Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu 11), 47–83. Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Kont, Karl
    1963 Käändsõnaline objekt läänemeresoome keeltes [The declined object in Baltic Finnic languages] (ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituudi uurimused IX). Tallinn: ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Koponen, Eino
    1985 Suomen and viron objektista [On the Finnish and Estonian object]. Lähivõrdlusi, Lähivertailuja11. 29–37.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Kratzer, Angelika
    2004 Telicity and the semantics of objective case. InJacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 389–423. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0017
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
61. Krifka, Manfred
    1992 Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. InIvan Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
    1991 Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguisticsBerlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110860146
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146 [Google Scholar]
63. Kruger, Haidee & Gert De Sutter
    2018 Alternations in contact and non-contact varieties: Reconceptualising that-omission in translated and non-translated English using the MuPDAR approach. Translation, Cognition & Behavior. 10.1075/tcb.00011.kru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tcb.00011.kru [Google Scholar]
64. Laanest, Arvo
    1975 Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Baltic Finnic languages]. Tallinn: Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Larjavaara, Matti
    1991 Aspektuaalisen objektin synty [The birth of the aspectual object]. Virittäjä95(4). 372–404.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Larjavaara, Matti
    2019 Partitiivin valinta [The choice of partitive]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar
    1983 Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen [Studies on the usage of the partitive in the Baltic Finnic languages]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsalensis.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar
    2001 Baltic influence on Finnic languages. InÖsten Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages: Past and present, 237–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.54.12lar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.54.12lar [Google Scholar]
69. Laugalienė, Asta
    2022 Lithuanian and Finnish object case corpus study. Vilnius: Vilnius University PhD dissertation.
70. Lees, Aet
    2015 Case Alternations in five Finnic languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps (Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 13). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004296367
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004296367 [Google Scholar]
71. Leino, Pentti
    1991 Lauseet ja tilanteet. Suomen objektin ongelmia [Sentences and situations. Problems of the Finnish object]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Lindström, Liina
    2017 Lause infostruktuur ja sõnajärg [The information structure and word order of sentences]. InMati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu 3), 547–565. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Luraghi, Silvia & Tuomas Huumo
    (eds.) 2014 Partitive case and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110346060
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346060 [Google Scholar]
74. Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, Christopher D. Manning, Joakim Nivre & Daniel Zeman
    2021 Universal Dependencies. Computational Linguistics47(2). 255–308. 10.1162/coli_a_00402
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00402 [Google Scholar]
75. Metslang, Helena
    2013 Grammatical relations in Estonian: Subject, object and beyond. (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 33). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
76. Metslang, Helle
    1994 Temporal relations in the predicate and the grammatical system of Estonian and Finnish. Oulu: Oulun Yliopisto.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Metslang, Helle
    1997 Eesti prefiksaaladverbist “ära” soome keele taustal [On the Estonian prefixal adverb “ära” from the viewpoint of the Finnish language]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja91. 31–46.
    [Google Scholar]
78. Metslang, Helle
    2001 On the developments of the Estonian aspect: the verbal particle ära. InÖsten Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages: Grammar and typology, vol. 2 (Studies in Language Companion Series 55), 443–479. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.55.07met
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.55.07met [Google Scholar]
79. Metslang, Helle
    2017 Sihitis [The object]. InMati Erelt & Helle Metslang (eds.), Eesti keele süntaks (Eesti keele varamu 3), 258–277Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Metslang, Helle & Külli Habicht
    2019 Partitive, genitive or nominative? Estonian DOM in written use through centuries. InUrtzi Etxeberria, Tabea Ihsane, Ilja Seržant, Petra Sleeman & Anne Tamm (eds.). Workshop proposal. Variation in the expression of partitivity and partitive expressions, 14th International Conference of General Linguistics (CILG2020). Sevilla, June 26th, 2020. Vienna: MS.
    [Google Scholar]
81. Metslang, Helle & Külli Habicht
    2023 Partitive, genitive or nominative? Estonian DOM in written use through centuries. Linguistic Variation23(1). 157–189. 10.1075/lv.20016.met
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.20016.met [Google Scholar]
82. Miljan, Merilin & Virve-Anneli Vihman
    2023 A corpus study of grammatical case forms in written and spoken Estonian: Frequency, distribution and grammatical role. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 14(3), 5–44. 10.12697/jeful.2023.14.3.01
    https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2023.14.3.01 [Google Scholar]
83. Nelson, Diane
    1998 Grammatical case assignment in Finnish. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Ojajärvi, Aulis
    1950 Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa: Nominatiivi, genetiivi, akkusatiivi ja partitiivi: Vertaileva funktio-opillinen tutkimus [On the semantic functions of the cases in the East Karelian dialects of Maaselkä: The nominative, genitive, accusative, and partitive: A comparative functional study] (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 97). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
85. Ogren, David Paul
    2018 Object case in Estonian da-infinitive constructions (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 41). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
86. Pool, Raili
    2007 Eesti keele teise keelena omandamise seaduspärasusi täis- ja osasihitise näite [The acquisition of total and partial objects by learners of Estonian as a second language] (Dissertationes Philologiae Estonicae Universitatis Tartuensis 19). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
87. Rajandi, Henno & Helle Metslang
    1979 Määratud ja määramata objekt [Defined and undefined object] (Eesti NSV TA Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut, Ars Grammatica). Tallinn: Valgus.
    [Google Scholar]
88. Rantanen, Timo, Harri Tolvanen, Meeli Roose, Jussi Ylikoski & Outi Vesakoski
    2022 Best practices for spatial language data harmonization, sharing and map creation – A case study of Uralic. InSøren Wichmann (ed.). PLOS ONE17(6). 10.1371/journal.pone.0269648
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269648 [Google Scholar]
89. Rantanen, Timo, Outi Vesakoski, Jussi Ylikoski & Harri Tolvanen
    2021 Geographical database of the Uralic languages. Zenodo. 10.5281/ZENODO.4784188
    https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4784188 [Google Scholar]
90. Reime, Hannu
    1993 Accusative marking in Finnish. InAnders Holmberg & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, 89–109. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110902600.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110902600.89 [Google Scholar]
91. Remes, Hannu
    2004 Kaks aastakümmet kontrastiivseminare [Two decades of contrastive seminars]. Keel ja Kirjandus41. 295–300.
    [Google Scholar]
92. Ritter, Ralf-Peter
    1989 Untersuchungen zum Partitiv im Vepsischen [Studies on the partitive in Veps] (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica. Band 26). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
93. Rätsep, Huno
    1957 Aspektikategooriast eesti keeles [On the category of aspect in Estonian]. Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat31. 72–77.
    [Google Scholar]
94. Rätsep, Huno
    1978 Eesti keele lihtlausete tüübid [Types of Estonian simple sentences] (ENSV TA Emakeele Seltsi Toimetised 12). Tallinn: Valgus.
    [Google Scholar]
95. Saareste, Andrus
    1926 Akusatiivist meie grammatikais [On the accusative in our grammars]. Tartu: Eesti Keel. 101–105.
    [Google Scholar]
96. Sahkai, Heete, Anne Tamm & Anders Holmberg
    2023 Eesti keele otseste eriküsilausete sõnajärje aspekte [Aspects of the word order of Estonian main clause wh-interrogatives]. Keel ja Kirjandus101. 987–1006. 10.54013/kk790a3
    https://doi.org/10.54013/kk790a3 [Google Scholar]
97. Schot-Saikku, Päivi
    1990 Der Partitiv und die kasusalternation [The partitive and case alternation]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
98. SCLOMB
    SCLOMB. s.d.Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici. Parallel corpus. University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
99. Seilenthal, Tõnu
    1988 Aspektist ja muust eesti ja soome keeles. Esialgseid märkmeid [On aspect and other things in Estonian and Finnish. Preliminary notes]. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja31. 52–59.
    [Google Scholar]
100. Sinnemäki, Kaius
     2014 A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics52(2). 281–313. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0063
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0063 [Google Scholar]
101. Sleeman, Petra & Giuliana Giusti
     (eds.) 2021 Partitive determiners, partitive pronouns and partitive case (Linguistische Arbeiten 580). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110732221
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110732221 [Google Scholar]
102. Sleeman, Petra & Silvia Luraghi
     (eds.) 2023 Partitives cross-linguistically: Dimensions of variation. Linguistic Variation23(1). 10.1075/lv.21020.lur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.21020.lur [Google Scholar]
103. Sulkala, Helena
     1996 Expression of aspectual meanings in Finnish and Estonian. InMati Erelt (ed.), Estonian: Typological Studies11, 165–217. Tartu: Publications of the Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu.
     [Google Scholar]
104. Tael, Kaja
     1988 Sõnajärjemallid eesti keeles (võrrelduna soome keelega) [Word order patterns in Estonian (compared to Finnish)]. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
105. Tamm, Anne
     2004 Relationships between Estonian verbs, aspect, and object case. Budapest: ELTE PhD dissertation.
106. Tamm, Anne
     2012 Scalar verb classes: Scalarity, thematic roles, and arguments in the Estonian aspectual lexicon. Firenze: Firenze University Press. 10.36253/978‑88‑6655‑055‑6
     https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-6655-055-6 [Google Scholar]
107. Tamm, Anne
     2014 The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: From abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. InSilvia Luraghi & Tuomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 54), 87–152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346060.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346060.89 [Google Scholar]
108. Tamm, Anne & Natalia Vaiss
     2019 Setting the boundaries: Partitive verbs in Estonian verb classifications. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics151. 159–181. 10.5128/ERYa15.09
     https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa15.09 [Google Scholar]
109. Tatevosov, Sergei & Mikhail Ivanov
     2009 Event structure of non-culminating accomplishments. InLotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop & Andrei Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, 83–129. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1075/la.148.05tat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.148.05tat [Google Scholar]
110. Tauli, Valter
     1983 Estonian grammar II. Syntax (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia, 14). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
     [Google Scholar]
111. Tveite, Tor
     2004 The case of the object in Livonian: A corpus based study (Castrenianumin toimitteita 62). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
     [Google Scholar]
112. Vainikka, Anne
     1989 Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
113. Vainikka, Anne & Pauli Brattico
     2011 The Finnish accusative. Biolinguistica Fennica Working Papers21. 33–58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274501023_The_Finnish_Accusative. (4 Jun, 2023.)
     [Google Scholar]
114. Vainikka, Anne & Joan Maling
     1996 Is partitive case inherent or structural?InJack Hoeksema (ed.), Partitives. Studies on the distribution and meaning of partitive expressions, 179–208. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908985.179
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908985.179 [Google Scholar]
115. Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna
     1998 On rheme and kontrast. InPeter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 79–108. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004373167_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373167_005 [Google Scholar]
116. Verkuyl, Henk
     1993 A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597848
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597848 [Google Scholar]
117. Vilkuna, Maria
     1989 Free word order in Finnish: Its syntax and discourse functions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
118. VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
     2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. scripta.kotus.fi/visk (June 3, 2023.)
     [Google Scholar]
119. Wright, Marvin N. & Andreas Ziegler
     2017 ranger: A Fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software77(1). 1–17. 10.18637/jss.v077.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v077.i01 [Google Scholar]
120. Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries
     2015 Prenominal adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism5(1). 122–150. 10.1075/lab.5.1.05wul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.05wul [Google Scholar]
121. Yli-Vakkuri, Valma
     (ed.) 1993 SCLOMB 1. Studia comparativa linguarum orbis Maris Baltici 1. Tutkimuksia syntaksin ja pragmasyntaksin alalta [Studies from the areas of syntax and pragmasyntax] (Turun Yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 43), Turku: University of Turku.
     [Google Scholar]