Volume 44, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper provides an overview of non-canonical patterns of switch-reference involving the converb in in selected Turkic languages. This converb is usually described as a same-subject converb, but we show that it can conform to McKenzie’s (2012) extended definition of “same-subject” as expressing the identity of topic situations, rather than subject referents. In addition to tracking cross-clausal subject identity, can be used when the possessor of the subject of one clause corefers with the subject of another clause and when the events expressed by the two clauses are in a close temporal and/or causal relationship. Based on Stirling (1993) and Bárány & Nikolaeva (2019), we argue that the role of possessors in Turkic switch-reference is captured by lexically specified conditions licensing the use of when two subjects are in a possessive relation. Finally, we suggest that both types of non-canonical switch-reference can be seen as ensuring discourse continuity.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva
    2013Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Gregory D. S.
    2004Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anetshofer, Helga
    2005Temporale Satzverbindungen in altosmanischen Prosatexten. Mit einer Teiledition aus Behcetü’l-Hada’iq (1303 und 1429), Muqaddime-i Qutbed din (1433) und Ferec ba’de ş-şidde (1451) (Turcologica 57). Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aydemir, İbrahim Ahmet
    2009Konverbien im Tuwinischen: Eine Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung des Altai-Dialekts. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva
    2019 Possessors in switch-reference. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics4(1), 81. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.865
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.865 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barker, Chris
    1995Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2011 Possessives and relational nouns. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.2, 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110255072.1109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1109 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berta, Árpád
    1996Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-Türkischen. Wies baden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bodrogligeti, András
    2003Academic reference grammar of Modern Literary Uzbek. 2vols.München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bošković, Zeljko & Serkan Şener
    2014 The Turkish NP. InPatricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, 102–140. Leiden: Brill. doi:  10.1163/9789004261440_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004261440_006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brendemoen, Bernt & Éva Ágnes Csató
    1987 A syntactic analysis of Turkish gerundial clauses with subject control. InHendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo Th. Verhoeven (eds.), Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics, 121–135. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Broadwell, George Aaron
    1997 Binding theory and switch-reference. InHans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Atomism and binding, 31–49. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Buğday, Korkut
    1999Osmanisch: Einführung in die Grundlagen der Literatursprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor
    1996 Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. InHilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822137.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822137.3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chomsky, Noam
    1981Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Comrie, Bernard
    1983 Switch-reference in Huichol: A typological study. InJohn Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.2.04com
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.2.04com [Google Scholar]
  18. 1988 Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society14. 265–279. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1798
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1798 [Google Scholar]
  19. Csató, Éva Ágnes & Lars Johanson
    1992 On gerundial syntax in Turkic. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae46(2/3). 133–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. de Sousa, Hilário
    2016 Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference. InRik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 55–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.114.02des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.114.02des [Google Scholar]
  21. Deal, Amy Rose
    2013 Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry44(3). 391–432. doi:  10.1162/LING_a_00133
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00133 [Google Scholar]
  22. Drimba, Vladimir
    1973Syntaxe comane. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Enç, Mürvet
    1986 Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. InDan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 195–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.8 [Google Scholar]
  24. Erdal, Marcel
    1998 Old Turkic. InLars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 138–157. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2004A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser
    1986 Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. InDan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ermolaeva, M. B.
    2016 Podležaščee v raznosub″ektnyx konstrukcijax s deepričastiem na -p v kirgizskom jazyke i mišarskom dialekte tatarskogo jazyka. [Subjects in constructions with the p-converb in Kyrghyz and Mišar Tatar]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana12(1). 417–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Wiebke Ramm
    2008 Editor’s introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. InCathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.98.01fab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.98.01fab [Google Scholar]
  29. Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin Jr.
    1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Friederich, Michael
    2012Uyghurisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gadžieva, Ninel’ Z. & Boris Aleksandrovič Serebrennikov
    1986 Sravnitelʹno-istoričeskaja grammatika Tjurkskix jazuikov: Sintaksis. [Comparative grammar of the Turkic languages: Syntax]. Moscow: Nauka.
  32. Givón, Talmy
    1979On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1983 Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. InJohn Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.2.06giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.2.06giv [Google Scholar]
  34. Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake
    2005Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Göksel, Aslı & Balkız Öztürk
    2019 Conditions on prominent internal possessors in Turkish. InAndrás Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 163–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Graščenkov, Pavel V.
    2015Tjurkskie konverby i serializacija: Sintaksis, semantika, grammatikalizacija. [Turkic converbs and serialization: Syntax, semantics, grammaticalization]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoj kulʹtury.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Graščenkov, Pavel V. & Marina B. Ermolaeva
    2015 O dvojstvennoj prirode tjurkskix kon verbov. [On the dual nature of Turkic converbs]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta9. 42–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Haiman, John & Pamela Munro
    1983 Introduction. InJohn Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, ix–xv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  40. Haspelmath, Martin
    1995 The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. InMartin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 1–55. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hazai, György
    1973Das Osmanisch-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert: Untersuchungen an den Transkriptionstexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsány. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 10.1515/9783110871166
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871166 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hebert, Raymond J. & Nicholas Poppe
    1963Kirghiz manual. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Imart, Guy
    1981Le kirghiz (Turk d’Asie Centrale Soviétique): Description d’une langue de littérisation recente. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Irmer, Matthias
    2011Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110262018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110262018 [Google Scholar]
  45. Isxakov, Fazyl G. & Aleksandr A. Pal′mbax
    1961Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka: Fonetika I morfologija [Grammar of Tuvan: Phonetics and morphology]. Moscow: Izdatel′stovo vostočnij literatury.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Johanson, Lars
    1992 Periodische Kettensätze im Türkischen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes82. 201–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 1995 On Turkic converb clauses. InMartin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 313–347. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1998 The history of Turkic. InLars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 81–125. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kahle, David & Hadley Wickham
    2013 Ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal5(1). 144–161. 10.32614/RJ‑2013‑014
    https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2013-014 [Google Scholar]
  50. Keine, Stefan
    2013 Deconstructing switch-reference. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory31(3). 767–826. doi:  10.1007/s11049‑013‑9194‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9194-8 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kerslake, Celia
    1998 Ottoman Turkish. InLars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 179–202. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    2017 Possession and partitives. InHans Burkhardt, Johanna Seibt, Guido Imaguire & Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (eds.), Handbook of mereology, 440–444. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    1997Turkish. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kreutel, Richard F.
    1965Osmanisch-Türkische Chrestomathie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Krueger, John R.
    1961Chuvash manual: Introduction, grammar, reader and vocabulary. Vol.7 (Uralic and Altaic Series). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lamiroy, Béatrice & Nicole Delbecque
    1998 The possessive dative in Romance and Germanic languages. InWilly Van Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds.), The dative: Volume 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies, 29–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cagral.3.04lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.3.04lam [Google Scholar]
  57. Lehmann, Christian
    2015Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn.Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  58. Löbner, Sebastian
    2011 Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics28(3). 279–333. doi:  10.1093/jos/ffq022
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq022 [Google Scholar]
  59. Maienborn, Claudia
    2003 Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation. InEwald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 475–510. doi:  10.1515/9783110894646.475
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894646.475 [Google Scholar]
  60. Martin, James Robert
    1992English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mawkanuli, Talant
    2005Jungar Tuvan texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Bloomington Institute for Inner Asian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. McKenzie, Andrew
    2007 Non-canonical switch-reference and situation semantics. InAmy Rose Deal (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 4: Semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas, 159–170. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2010 Subject domain restriction and reference-tracking. Proceedings of SALT20. 269–288. 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2575
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2575 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2012 The role of contextual restriction in reference-tracking. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.
  65. Menges, Karl H.
    1995The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies. 2nd, revised edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Mithun, Marianne
    1993 ‘‘Switch-reference”: Clause combining in Central Pomo. International Journal of American Linguistics59(2). 119–136. doi:  10.1086/466192
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466192 [Google Scholar]
  67. Munro, Pamela
    2016 Chickasaw switch-reference revisited. InRik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 377–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.114.11mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.114.11mun [Google Scholar]
  68. Myler, Neil
    2016Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Nariyama, Shigeko
    2003Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.66
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.66 [Google Scholar]
  70. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
    1995 Some typological parameters of converbs. InMartin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 97–136. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Nevskaja, Irina
    1988 Deepričastie na -p kak komponent osložnennogo i složnogo predloženija v šorskom jazyke. [Converbs in -p in simple and complex sentences in Shor]. InMaiia I. Čeremisina, Elena K. Shamina & L′udmila A. Shamina (eds.), Komponenty predloženija (na materiale jazykov raznyx sistem). [Sentence components (based on the languages of different structure)], 154–169. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SOAN.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Nevskaya, Irina
    1998 Subject valency of Shor gerunds. InLars Johanson (ed.), The Mainz meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 3–6, 1994, 234–243. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2008 Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. InChristoph Schroeder, Gerd Hentschel & Winfried Boeder (eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond, 275–294. Oldenburg: BIS.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2010 Converbs as depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. InHendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz, 191–200. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Nichols, Johanna
    1983 Switch-reference in the Northeast Caucasus. InJohn Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 245–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.2.14nic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.2.14nic [Google Scholar]
  76. Nikolaeva, Irina, András Bárány & Oliver Bond
    2019 Towards a typology of prominent internal possessors. InAndrás Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 1–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nikolaeva, Irina & Andrew Spencer
    2019Mixed categories: The morphosyntax of nominal modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/9781108233903
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108233903 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ortmann, Albert
    2018 Connecting the typology and semantics of nominal possession: Alienability splits and the morphology-semantics interface. Morphology28. 99–144. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑017‑9319‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9319-6 [Google Scholar]
  79. Ótott-Kovács, Eszter
    2015 The syntax of non-finite clauses in Kazakh. Szeged: University of Szeged PhD dissertation.
  80. Öztürk, Balkız & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan
    2016 Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua182. 88–108. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  81. Pakendorf, Brigitte
    2007Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and genetic perspectives. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Partee, Barbara H.
    1997 Genitives: A case study. InJohan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 464–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev
    2003 Genitives, relational nouns and argument-modifier ambiguity. InEwald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 67–112. doi:  10.1515/9783110894646.67
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894646.67 [Google Scholar]
  84. Pazelʹskaja, Anna G. & Andrej B. Šluinskij
    2007 Obstojatelʹstvennye predloženija. [Adverbial clauses]. InEkaterina A. Lyutikova, Konstantin I. Kazenin, Sergej G. Tatevosov & V. D. Solovjev (eds.), Mišarskij dialekt tatarzkogo jazyka: Očerki po sintaks isu i semantike. [The Mišar dialect of Tatar: Essays on syntax and semantics], 38–83. Kazan: Magarif.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Petrova, Tujana
    2008Kratkij rusko-jakutskij slovarʹ. [A concise Russian-Yakut dictionary]. Yakutsk: Bičik, Republic of Sakha.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Pustet, Regina
    2013 Switch-reference or coordination?: A quantitative approach to clause linkage in Lakota. International Journal of American Linguistics79(2). 153–188. doi:  10.1086/669627
    https://doi.org/10.1086/669627 [Google Scholar]
  87. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2019R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Róna-Tas, András
    1991An introduction to Turkology. Szeged: Attila József University.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Say, Sergey
    2019 Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir. InAndrás Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 198–227. Oxford: Ox ford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  90. Schroeder, Christoph
    2004 Depiktive im Sprachvergleich Deutsch-Türkisch: Eine kontrastivtypologische Analyse. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück Habilitation thesis.
  91. Seržant, Ilja A.
    2012 The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area: A diachronic and areal account. Lingua122(4). 356–385. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  92. Shibatani, Masayoshi
    1994 An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society20. 461–486. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1438
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1438 [Google Scholar]
  93. Sommerer, Lotte
    2015 The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cal.18.04som
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.04som [Google Scholar]
  94. Stirling, Lesley
    1993Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597886 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tekin, Talat
    1968A grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2007 The concepts of constructional mismatch and type shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive linguistics18(4). 523–557. doi:  10.1515/COG.2007.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.027 [Google Scholar]
  97. Turan, Fikret
    1996 Old Anatolian Turkish syntactic structure. Cambridge: Harvard University PhD dissertation.
  98. 1998 Converbs in Old Anatolian Turkish: Amorpho-syntactic approach. Folia Orientalia34. 175–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 2000Adverbs and adverbial constructions in Old Anatolian Turkish. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Ubrjatova, Elizaveta I. & Feliks A. Litvin
    (eds.) 1986Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikat ivnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx sistem. [Structural types of polypredicative sen tences with synthetic verbal form in languages of different typology]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. van der Auwera, Johan
    1998 Defining converbs. InLeonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 273–282. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110913750.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913750.273 [Google Scholar]
  102. van Gijn, Rik
    2016 Switch reference: An overview. InRik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 1–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.114.01van
  103. Vikner, Carl & Per Anker Jensen
    2002 A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica56(2). 191–226. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9582.00092
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00092 [Google Scholar]
  104. von Gabain, Annemarie
    1974Alttürkische Grammatik. 3rd edn.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Weisser, Philipp
    2015Derived coordination: A minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110443578
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110443578 [Google Scholar]
  106. Wilkins, David
    1988 Switch-reference in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Form, function and problems of identity. InPeter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, 141–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.15.07wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.15.07wil [Google Scholar]
  107. Ylikoski, Jussi
    2003 Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of Linguistics16. 185–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Zieme, Peter
    1999/2000 Review of Alttürkische Handschriften by Dieter Maue. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher16. 294–297.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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