Volume 42, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aissen, Judith
    2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory21(3). 435–483.10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova
    2010 Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory28(3). 593–642.10.1007/s11049‑010‑9105‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mark C. & William Croft
    2017 Lexical categories: Legacy, lacuna, and opportunity for functionalists and formalists. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, pp.179–197.10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011516‑034134
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034134 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barker, Chris
    2012 Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry43(4). 614–633.10.1162/ling_a_00108
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00108 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bresnan, Joan , Shipra Dingare & Christopher D. Manning
    2001 Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, 13–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, Noam
    1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dryer, Matthew S.
    1986 Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language62(4). 808–845.10.2307/415173
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415173 [Google Scholar]
  9. Handschuh, Corinna
    2014A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 1].10.26530/OAPEN_533871
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_533871 [Google Scholar]
  10. Haspelmath, Martin
    2004 Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions2. (journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/constructions/article/view/3073.html)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2005 Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery3(1). 1–21.10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.280
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.280 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2007 Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language14(1). 79–102.10.1075/fol.14.1.06has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.1.06has [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011 On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingustic Typology15(3). 535–567.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2014 Comparative syntax. In Andrew Carnie , Yosuke Sato & Dan Siddiqi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 490–508. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heine, Bernd & Christa König
    2010 On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences32(1). 87–131.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Klaiman, M. H.
    1992 Inverse languages. Lingua88. 227–261.10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90043‑I
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90043-I [Google Scholar]
  17. Lehmann, Christian
    2015Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press (langsci-press.org/catalog/book/88).10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  18. Malchukov, Andrej
    2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua118. 203–221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Maslova, Elena
    2003A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197174
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197174 [Google Scholar]
  20. McGregor, William B.
    2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua120(7). 1610–1636.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  21. Narrog, Heiko & Shinya Ito
    2007 Re-constructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung60(4). 273–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Perlmutter, David M.
    1980 Relational grammar. In Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax, 195–229. New York: Academic Press [Syntax and Semantics 13].
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Primus, Beatrice
    1999Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110912463
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912463 [Google Scholar]
  24. Stiebels, Barbara
    2015 Control. In Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax: Theory and analysis, vol.1, 412–446. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK), 42].
    [Google Scholar]
  25. van Lier, Eva
    2012 Referential effects on the expression of three-participant events across languages: An introduction in memory of Anna Siewierska. Linguistic Discovery10(3). 1–16.10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.413
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.413 [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr.
    2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Book Review
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error