1887
Volume 41, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a cross-linguistic survey of case systems with several non-phonologically distributed markers of ergative case, based on a convenience sample of more than 70 languages from all over the world. It is shown that in most languages the distribution of different ergative markers splits along the lines predicted by the referential hierarchy (local pronouns > non-local pronouns > proper names > kinship terms > humans > nonhumans > inanimates), thus complementing the much better known ergativity splits. Other types of conditioning of “multiple ergatives” include gender, such nominal morphosyntactic features as number and (in)definiteness, as well as clausal morphosyntactic features like tense/aspect, polarity and person of co-arguments. “Fluid” systems where the choice of ergative marker is based on semantic or pragmatic factors are attested as well. The article also discusses the implications of ergative allomorphy and ergative alternations for the typology of ergativity and case marking in general.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.06ark
2017-10-25
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adger, David, Susana Béjar & Daniel Harbour
    2003 Directionality of allomorphy: A reply to Carstairs–McCarthy. Transactions of the Philological Society101(1). 109–115. doi:  10.1111/1467‑968X.00111
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00111 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aissen, Judith
    1999 Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17(4). 673–711. doi:  10.1023/A:1006335629372
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006335629372 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21(3). 435–483. doi:  10.1023/A:1024109008573
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alekseev, Mikhail & Boris M. Ataev
    1997Avarskij jazyk. [The Avar language]. Мoscow: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, Stephen R., Lea Brown, Alice Gaby & Jacqueline Lecarme
    2006 Life on the edge: There’s morphology there after all!Lingue e linguaggio5(1). 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Aristar, Anthony R.
    1997 Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of case-markers. Studies in Language21. 313–368. doi:  10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.2.04ari [Google Scholar]
  7. Arkadiev, Peter M.
    2014a O nekotoryх osobennostjax sklonenija v adygskix jazykax [On some peculiarities of declension in the Circassian languages]. InVladimir A. Plungian (ed.), Jazyk. Konstanty. Peremennye: Pamjati Aleksandra Evgenʹeviča Kibrika [Language. Constants. Variables. To the memory of Alexander Kibrik], 552–563. Saint-Petersburg: Aletheia.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arkadiev, P. M.
    2014b Interplay of agglutination, cumulation and overabundance: non-canonical case-number paradigm in Adyghe. Talk at the 16th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 29 May–1 June 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arkadiev, Peter
    2016 Long-distance genitive of negation in Lithuanian. InAxel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 37–81. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/vargreb.3.01ark
    https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.3.01ark [Google Scholar]
  10. Austin, Peter K.
    2013A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. 2nd Online Edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bailey, T. Grahame
    1924Grammar of the Shina language. London: The Royal Asiatic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baker, Mark C.
    2015Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781107295186
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295186 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bedir Khan, Emir Djeladet & Roger Lescot
    1991Grammaire kurde (Dialecte kurmandji). Paris: Maissonneuve.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bickel, Balthasar
    2008 On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. InGreville Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 191–210. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.81.09ont
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.81.09ont [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 Grammatical relations typology. InJae-Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
    2013 Exponence of selected inflectional formatives. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/21, Accessed on2016-04-11.)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Taras Zakharko
    2015 Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. InBornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspectives, 7–43. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Blake, Barry J.
    1979A Kalkatungu grammar. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
    2000 The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics10. 35–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bonet, Eulàlia & Daniel Harbour
    2012 Contextual allomorphy. InJochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573721.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  21. Booij, Geert
    1997 Allomorphy and the autonomy of morphology. Folia Linguistica31. 25–56. doi:  10.1515/flin.1997.31.1‑2.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1997.31.1-2.25 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012 Allomorphy and the architecture of grammar. InBert Botma & Roland Noske (eds.), Phonological explorations. Empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues, 9–24. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton 2012. doi:  10.1515/9783110295177.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295177.9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Borgman, Donald M.
    1990 Sanuma. InDesmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol.2, 15–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bossong, Georg
    1985Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bowe, Heather J.
    1990Categories, constituents and constituent order in Pitjantjatjara, an Aboriginal language of Australia. London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Breen, Govan
    1974 Wakaya grammar. Ms.
  27. Bril, Isabelle
    2002Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Analyse syntaxique et sémantique. Leuven: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bybee, Joan
    1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Carstairs, Andrew
    1987Allomorphy in inflextion. London etc: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
    1994 Inflection classes, gender, and principle of contrast. Language70(4). 737–788. doi:  10.2307/416326
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416326 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1998 How lexical semantics constrains inflectional allomorphy. InGeert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997, 1–24. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4998‑3_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4998-3_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2001 Grammatically conditioned allomorphy, paradigmatic structure, and the ancestry constraint. Transactions of the Philological Society99(2). 223–245. doi:  10.1111/1467‑968X.00081
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00081 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Charachidzé, Georges
    1989 Ubykh. InB.George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2. The North West Caucasian languages, 359–459. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Coghill, Eleanor
    2016The rise and fall of ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. InWinfried P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin, London: The University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1979 Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana3. 13–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1981 Ergativity and grammatical relations in Kalaw Lagaw Ya (Saibai dialect). Australian Journal of Linguistics1. 1–42. doi:  10.1080/07268608108599265
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608108599265 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/98, Accessed on2016-12-20.)
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Coon, Jessica
    2013 TAM split ergativity (parts 1–2). Language and Linguistics Compass7. 171–200. doi:  10.1111/lnc3.12011
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12011 [Google Scholar]
  41. Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger
    . To appear. Split ergativity is not about ergativity. InJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis eds. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10 [Google Scholar]
  42. Corbett, Greville G.
    2008 Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. InGreville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 1–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.81.01det
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.81.01det [Google Scholar]
  43. 2009 Canonical inflectional classes. InFabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Decembrettes, 1–11. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Costa, Raquel Guimarães Romankevicius
    1998 Aspects of ergativity in Marubo (Panoan). The Journal of Amazonian Languages1(3). 50–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2013 The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. InDik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110331127.69
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.69 [Google Scholar]
  46. Daudey, Henriёtte
    2014A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Deal, Amy Rose
    2010 Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory28. 73–120. doi:  10.1007/s11049‑009‑9081‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9081-5 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2015 Ergativity. InArtemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Syntax – Theory and analysis. An international handbook. Vol.1, 654–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart
    (eds.) 2008Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. de Oliveira, Christiane Cunha
    2005The language of the Apinajé people of Central Brasil. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1977A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139085045
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139085045 [Google Scholar]
  52. Döhler, Christian
    2015 Morphological complexity in Komnzo verbs. Presentation from the international conference “Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect”, Leipzig, May 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
    (eds.) 2008The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Douglas, Wilfrid H.
    1981 Watjarri. InR. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake, The handbook of Australian languages. Vol.2, 196–272. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Dourado, Luciana
    2001Aspectos morfossintácticos da língua Panará (Jê). Campinas: UNICAMP.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Dourado, Luciana & Spike Gildea
    2008 Object relations in Panará (Jê). Handout of the paper presented at Syntax of the World’s Languages-3, Berlin, September 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Dryer, Matthew S.
    2013 Position of case affixes. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/51, Accessed on2016-04-11.)
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Dunn, Michael J.
    1999A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Eades, Diana
    1979 Gumbaynggir. InR. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages, Vol.1, 244–361. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Edelman, Džoj I.
    1983The Dardic and Nuristani languages. Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Emkow, Carola
    2006A grammar of Araona, an Amazonian language of Northwestern Bolivia. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Evans, Nicholas
    2015 Inflection in Nen. InMatthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 543–575. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Faarlund, Jan Terje
    2012A grammar of Chiapas Zoque. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Fauconnier, Stefanie
    2011 Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to reduced transitivity. Studies in Language35(2). 311–336. doi:  10.1075/sl.35.2.03fau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.2.03fau [Google Scholar]
  65. 2012Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: A cross-linguistic study. Lueven: Katholieke Universiteit Lueven doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Fauconnier, Stefanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
    2010 Distinguishing animacy effects for agents: A case study of Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics30(2). 183–207. doi:  10.1080/07268601003678619
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268601003678619 [Google Scholar]
  67. Fenwick, Rohan S. H.
    2011A grammar of Ubykh. München: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ferreira, Marília de Nazaré de Oliveira
    2003Estudo morfossintáctico da língua parkatêjê. Campinas: Universidade de Campinas PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Filimonova, Elena
    2005 The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology9(1). 77–113. doi:  10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77 [Google Scholar]
  70. Ford, Kevin & Dana Ober
    1991 A sketch of Kalaw Kawaw Ya. InSuzanne Romaine (ed.), Language in Australia, 118–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620881.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620881.009 [Google Scholar]
  71. Forker, Diana
    2013A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110303971
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110303971 [Google Scholar]
  72. Frachtenberg, Leo J.
    1922 Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua). InFrans Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages. P. 2, 431–629. Oosterhout, NB: Anthropological publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Gaby, Alice R.
    2006A grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Gaby, Alice E.
    2010 From discourse to syntax and back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology. Lingua120. 1677–1692. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.014 [Google Scholar]
  75. Ganenkov, Dmitry, Timur Maisak & Solmaz Merdanova
    2008 Non-canonical agent marking in Agul. InHelen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 173–198. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Georgi, Doreen
    2012 A uniform analysis of global and local argument encoding patterns. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII, 137–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Goddard, Cliff
    1982 Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics2. 167–196. doi:  10.1080/07268608208599290
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608208599290 [Google Scholar]
  78. Green, Ian
    1989Marrithiyel, a language of the Daly River region of Australia’s Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Grjunberg, Aleksandr L.
    1972Mundžanskij jazyk. Teksty. Slovarʹ. Grammatičeskij očerk [The Munji language. Texts. Vocabulary. Grammatical sketch]. Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 1980Jazyk kati [The Kati language]. Moscow: Vostočnaja literatura.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Guillaume, Antoine
    2008A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110211771
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211771 [Google Scholar]
  82. Guirardello, Raquel
    1999A reference grammar of Trumai. Houston, TX: Rice University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. InKenneth L. Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 117–176. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Handschuh, Corinna
    2014A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:  10.26530/OAPEN_533871
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_533871 [Google Scholar]
  85. Hargreaves, David J.
    2003 Kathmandu Newar. InRandy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 371–384. Richmond: Curzon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Harms, Phillip L.
    1994Epena Pedee syntax. Dallas, Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Harris, Alice C.
    1981Georgian syntax. A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 1985Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. San Diego etc.: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 1991 Mingrelian. InAlice C. Harris (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 1. The Kartvelian languages, 313–394. Delmar, New York: Caravan.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 2008 On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. InJeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 54–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  91. Harvey, Mark
    1986Ngoni Waray Amungal-Yang: the Waray language from Adelaide River. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Haspelmath, Martin
    1993A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110884210
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884210 [Google Scholar]
  93. 2009 Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics19(1). 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 2015 Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. InIna Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspectives, 45–58. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Haviland, John B.
    1979 Guugu Yimidhir. Sketch grammar. InR. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages, Vol.1, 26–180. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Hays, Darrell & Hays, Kerttu
    2002Odoodee grammar essentials. Ms., Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Hercus, Luise A.
    1994A grammar of the Arabana-Wangkangurru language, Lake Eyre Basin, South Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Holisky, Dee A. & Rusudan Gagua
    1994 Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). InRieks Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4. North East Caucasian languages. Part 2, 147–212. Delmar: Caravan.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Hook, Peter E. & Omkar N. Koul
    2004 Case as agreement. Non-nominative subjects in Eastern Shina, non-dative objects in Kashmiri and Poguli, and labile subjects in Kashmiri and Gujarati intransitive inceptives. InPeri Bashkararao & Karamuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol.1, 213–225. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.60.12hoo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.60.12hoo [Google Scholar]
  100. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2). 251–299. doi:  10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  101. Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina
    (eds.) 2003A grammar of Basque. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110895285
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895285 [Google Scholar]
  102. Iemmolo, Giorgio
    2011Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia: Università degli studi di Pavia tesi di dottorato.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Iggesen, Oliver A.
    2005Case-asymmetry. A world-wide typological study on lexeme-class-dependent deviations in morphological case inventories. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Jansen, Joana W.
    2010A grammar of Yakima Ichishkíin / Sahaptin. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon PhD Thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Jones, Linda K.
    1986 The question of ergativity in Yawa, a Papuan language. Australian Journal of Linguistics6. 37–55. doi:  10.1080/07268608608599354
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608608599354 [Google Scholar]
  106. Kalin, Laura & Coppe van Urk
    2015 Aspect splits without ergativity. Agreement asymmetries in Neo-Aramaic. Natural Language and Lingustic Theory33. 659–702. doi:  10.1007/s11049‑014‑9262‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9262-8 [Google Scholar]
  107. Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller
    2015 Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. InIna Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov, Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspective, 75–130. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Khalilova, Zaira
    2009A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Kibrik, Alexander E.
    1991 Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian languages: Comparative and typological observations. InFrans Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection, 255–274. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110889109.255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889109.255 [Google Scholar]
  110. Kibrik, Alexander E. & Jakov G. Testelec
    (eds.) 1999Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii. [Elements of Tsakhur in a typological perspective]. Moscow: Nasledie.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Kibrik, Alexander E., Sandro V. Kodzasov & Irina A. Murav’eva
    2000Jazyk i folʹklor aljutorcev [Alutor language and folklore]. Moscow: Nasledie.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Killian, Don
    2015Topics in Uduk phonology and morphosyntax. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Kittilä, Seppo
    2005 Remarks on the involuntary agent constructions. Word56.3. 381–419. doi:  10.1080/00437956.2005.11432555
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2005.11432555 [Google Scholar]
  114. Koul, Omkar N. & Kashi Wali
    2006Modern Kashmiri grammar. Springfield: Dunwoody Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Kumakhov, Mukhadin A. & Karina Vamling
    2009Circassian clause structure. Malmö: Malmö University.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Lazard, Gilbert
    2002 Transitivity revisited as a result of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Lingistica36(3/4). 141–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Legate, Julie A.
    2014 Split ergativity based on nominal type. Lingua148. 183–212. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  118. Liljegren, Henrik
    2016A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:  10.26530/OAPEN_611690
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_611690 [Google Scholar]
  119. Logan, Tommy
    2007Kasua grammar sketch. Ms., Summer Instutute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Louwerse, John
    1988The morphosyntax of Una in relation to discourse structure. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Malchukov, Andrej
    2006 Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Considering co-variation. InLeonid I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 329–358. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.77.21mal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.21mal [Google Scholar]
  122. Malchukov, Andrej & Helen de Hoop
    2011 Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua special issue on Semantics of case variation121. 35–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Maslova, Elena
    2003Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110197174
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197174 [Google Scholar]
  124. Massam, Diane
    1996 Clause structure and case in Niuean. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics14(2). 83–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Mazadoun, Martine
    2003 Tamang. InRandy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 291–314. Richmond: Curzon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. McDonald, Lorna
    1990A grammar of Tauya. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110846027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846027 [Google Scholar]
  127. McGregor, William
    2006 Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua116. 393–423. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  128. 2009 Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1). 480–508. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00118.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00118.x [Google Scholar]
  129. 2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua120. 1610–1636. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  130. Miestamo, Matti
    2013 The marking of nominal participants under negation. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 2014 Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey. InSilvia Luraghi & Toomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories, 63–86. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Mohanan, Tara
    1994Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Morphy, Frances
    1983 Djapu, a Yolngu dialect. InR. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages, Vol.3, 1–188. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Nichols, Johanna
    1994 Chechen. InRieks Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4. North East Caucasian languages. Part 2, 2–78. Delmar: Caravan.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. 2011Ingush grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles: The University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Nordlinger, Rachel
    1998A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Nordlinger, Rachel & Louise Sadler
    2004 Nominal tense in cross-linguistic perspective. Language80(4). 776–806. doi:  10.1353/lan.2004.0219
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0219 [Google Scholar]
  138. Pacchiarotti, Sara
    . To appear. On the origins of the ergative marker wã in the Viceitic languages of the Chibchan family. InJóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Lujón & Spike Gildea eds. Reconstructing grammar: cognates and directionality. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Palancar, Enrique L.
    2002The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. doi:  10.1524/9783050081410
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050081410 [Google Scholar]
  140. Paster, Mary
    2006Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Patz, Elizabeth
    1991 Djabugay. InR. M. W. Dixon, Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages. Vol.4, 243–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 2002A grammar of the Kuku Yalanji language of North Queensland. Canberra: Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Pensalfini, Rob J.
    1997Jingulu grammar, dictionary and texts. Boston: MIT PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Phillips, Maxwell
    2013 Ergative case attrition in Central Indo-Aryan. NP-splits and the referential hierarchy. Studies in Language37(1). 196–216. doi:  10.1075/sl.37.1.05phi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.1.05phi [Google Scholar]
  145. Piper, Nick
    1989A sketch grammar of Meryam Mir. Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Plank, Frans
    1986 Paradigm size, morphological typology, and universal economy. Folia Linguistica20. 29–48. doi:  10.1515/flin.1986.20.1‑2.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1986.20.1-2.29 [Google Scholar]
  147. Quesada, J. Diego
    1999 Ergativity in Chibchan. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung52(1). 22–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Quick, Philip A.
    2001 Applicatives and double objects in Pendau. NUSA49. 95–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Round, Erich & Lesley Stirling
    2015 Universals of split argument coding and morphological neutralization: Why Kala Lagaw Ya is not as bizarre as we thought. Australian Journal of Linguistics35(3). 251–281. doi:  10.1080/07268602.2015.1023171
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.1023171 [Google Scholar]
  150. Rude, Noel
    1991 On the origins of the Nez Perce ergative NP suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics57(1). 24–50. doi:  10.1086/ijal.57.1.3519712
    https://doi.org/10.1086/ijal.57.1.3519712 [Google Scholar]
  151. 1997 On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian. International Journal of American Linguistics63(1). 113–143. doi:  10.1086/466315
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466315 [Google Scholar]
  152. Sands, Anna Kristina
    1996The ergative in Proto-Australian. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Schmidt, Ruth Laila & Razwal Kohistani
    2008A grammar of the Shina language of Indus Kohistan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Seržant, Ilja & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2016 Differential argument marking: an introduction. InIlja Seržant, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Kelsey Mann (eds.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking. In preparation.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Silva, Maria Amélia Reis
    2001Pronomes, ordem e ergatividade em Mebengokre (Kayapó). Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. InR. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Sitimova, Sara S.
    2004Osobennosti bžedugskogo dialekta adygejskogo jazyka [The features of the Bzhedug dialect of Adyghe]. Majkop: Adygeyan State University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Skorik, Petr Ja
    1961Grammatika čukotskogo jazyka. I. Fonetika i morfologija imennyx častej reči. [A grammar of Chukchi. I. Phonology and nominal morphology.] Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Spencer, Andrew
    2006 Syntactic vs. morphological case: implications for morphosyntax. InLeonid I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 3–22. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.77.03spe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.77.03spe [Google Scholar]
  160. 2009 Case as a morphological phenomenon. InAndrew Spencer & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 185–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Stirtz, Timothy M.
    2014 Ergative, antipassive and other verb derivational morphemes in Gaahmg. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics35(2). 443–272. doi:  10.1515/jall‑2014‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2014-0008 [Google Scholar]
  162. Stump, Gregory
    2015 Inflection classes. InMatthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 113–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  163. Svärd, Erik
    2013 Selected topics in the grammar of Nalca. Stockholm: Stockholm University BA thesis.
  164. Tegey, Habibullah & Barbara Robson
    1996A reference grammar of Pashto. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Testelec, Jakov G.
    (ed.) 2009Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka [Aspects of polysynthesis: Studies in Adyghe grammar]. Moscow: RSUH.
    [Google Scholar]
  166. Todd, Terry Lynn
    2008A grammar of Dimili also known as Zaza. Stockholm: Iremet Förlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  167. Toland, Norma R. & Donald F. Toland
    1991Reference grammar of the Karo/Rawa language. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  168. Tsunoda, Tasaku
    2011A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110238778
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238778 [Google Scholar]
  169. van Driem, George
    1993A grammar of Dumi. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110880915
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880915 [Google Scholar]
  170. 2015 Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language. A language of Central Bhutan highlands. Himalayan Linguistics Archive6. 1–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  171. Verhoeven, Elisabeth
    2013 Ergativity splits and DSM in Cabécar (Chibcha). Presentation from the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  172. Vogt, Hans
    1971Grammaire de la langue géorgienne. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    [Google Scholar]
  173. Wier, Thomas
    2011Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  174. Wilkinson, Melanie P.
    1991Djambarrpuyngu. A Yolngu variety of Northern Australia. Vol.1. Sydney: University of Sydney PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  175. Williams, Cindy S.
    1993A grammar sketch of Dəməna. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1988The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  177. Zekox, Učužuk S.
    1969Sistema sklonenija v adygejskom jazyke [The system of declension in Adyghe] Majkop: Krasnodarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.
    [Google Scholar]
  178. Žukova, Alevtina N.
    1972Grammatika korjakskogo jazyka. Fonetika. Morfologija. [A grammar of Koryak. Phonology. Morphology]. Leningrad: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.06ark
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.41.3.06ark
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): allomorphy , case , ergativity , morphology and referential hierarchies
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