A typology of Goal-Source marking in transfer events

References

1. Aissen, Judith
   2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21(3). 435–83.   10.1023/A:1024109008573
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
2. Aristar, Anthony R.
   1997 Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of case-markers. Studies in Language21(2). 313–368.   10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari [Google Scholar]
3. Comrie, Bernard
   1986 Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. InFred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jesica R. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness, 85–106. New York: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4757‑5718‑7_6
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5718-7_6 [Google Scholar]
4. Comrie, Bernard
   1989 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Creissels, Denis & Céline Mounole
   2011 Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies, and the case of Basque. In: Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 157–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.06cre
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.06cre [Google Scholar]
6. Denghani, A.
   2002 Iranian Azari. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Ebert, Karen
   1997 Camling. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Fauconnier, Stefanie
   2012 Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate Agents: A cross-linguistic study. University of Leuven dissertation.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Iemmolo, Giorgio
   2011 Differential Object Marking. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Iggesen, Oliver A.
    2013 Number of Cases. In: Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/49, Accessed on2020-03-17.)
    [Google Scholar]
11. Kittilä, Seppo
    2008 Animacy effects on Differential Goal Marking. Linguistic Typology12(2). 245–268. 10.1515/LITY.2008.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LITY.2008.038 [Google Scholar]
12. Kittilä, Seppo & Ylikoski, Jussi
    2011 Remarks on the coding of Direction, Recipient and Vicinal Direction in European Uralic. In: Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.99.02kit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.99.02kit [Google Scholar]
13. Klavan, Jane
    2012 Evidence in linguistics: corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Kopecka, Anetta & Bhuvana Narasimhan
    (eds.) 2012 Events of putting and taking: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100 [Google Scholar]
15. Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer
    2009 Typology of case systems: Parameters and variation. In: Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), The Oxford handbook of case, 651–667. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Næss, Åshild
    2003 What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua114. 1186–1212.   10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.005 [Google Scholar]
17. Schulze, Wolfgang
    1997 Tsakhur. München/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Song, Jae Jung
    2001 Linguistic typology. Morphology and syntax. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Valenzuela, Pilar M.
    1997 Basic verb types and argument structures in Shipibo-Conibo. Eugene: University of Oregon MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Valenzuela, Pilar M.
    2003 Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Eugene: University of Oregon PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Watters, David
    2003 Kham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]