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


This article reviews Scales and Hierarchies. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective by Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov, Marc Richards



Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. Arkadiev, Peter
    2011 The role of referential hierarchies in ergative allomorphy. Talk at the workshop Referential Hierarchies in Alignment Typology, 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September 2011. www.inslav.ru/images/stories/people/arkadiev/Arkadiev_2ergative_hierarchy-sle11.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2017 Multiple ergatives: From allomorphy to differential agent marking. Studies in Language41: 717–780. doi:  10.1075/sl.41.3.06ark
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.06ark [Google Scholar]
  5. Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paducheva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov G. Testelets & Igor Yanovich
    2008 Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. The Stony Brook meeting (FASL 16), Andrej Antonenko (ed.), 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart
    eds. 2008Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov
    2008 Case marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry39(4). 565–587. doi:  10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565 [Google Scholar]
  8. DeLancey, Scott
    1981 An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language57(3). 626–667. doi:  10.2307/414343
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414343 [Google Scholar]
  9. de Swart, Peter
    2007Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1972The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139084987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084987 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gildea, Spike
    1992 Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the genesis of ergativity in independent clauses. PhD Diss., University of Oregon.
  12. Handschuh, Corinna
    2014A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. langsci-press.org/catalog/book/18 doi:  10.26530/OAPEN_533871
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_533871 [Google Scholar]
  13. Haspelmath, Martin
    2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. doi:  10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  14. Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8(1). 63–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Keine, Stefan
    2010Case and agreement from fringe to core. A minimalist approach. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110234404
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110234404 [Google Scholar]
  16. Klokeid, Terry J.
    1976 71. Lardil. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 550–584. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Malchukov, Andrej
    2005 Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds.), 73–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi:  10.1016/B978‑008044651‑6/50006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50006-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua118. 203–221. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Marten, Lutz & Jenneke van der Wal
    2014 A typology of Bantu subject inversion. Linguistic Variation14(2). 318–368. doi:  10.1075/lv.14.2.04mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14.2.04mar [Google Scholar]
  20. Norris, Evan J.
    1986 A grammar sketch and comparative study of Eastern Mono. PhD Diss., University of California at San Diego.
  21. Preminger, Omer
    2011Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Primus, Beatrice
    1999Cases and thematic roles. Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi:  10.1515/9783110912463
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912463 [Google Scholar]
  23. Marc Richards & Malchukov, Andrej L.
    (eds.) 2008Scales. (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86). Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig. www.uni-leipzig.de/~asw/lab/lab86/LAB86.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Smith-Stark, T. Cedric
    1974 The plurality split. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April19–21 1974, Michael W. La Galy; Robert A. Fox and Anthony Bruck (eds.), 657–671. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Stump, Gregory T.
    2001Inflectional morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511486333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2016Inflectional paradigms. Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781316105290
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316105290 [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