Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 34:3 (2017) ► pp.368–419

Semantic and cognitive factors of argument marking in ancient Indo-European languages

 | University of Zurich
This paper discusses how the argument structure of experience predicates may be affected by semantic factors in Indo-European. I investigate whether the semantic role of the experiencer is preferably expressed by the nominative or by an oblique case in various predicates of volition, cognition, propositional attitude, psychological experience and physical perception in each Indo-European branch, with particular consideration of Hittite, Old Indic, Ancient Greek, Latin, Classical Armenian and Tocharian. In my data, while the nominative coding of the experiencer tends to be generalized to heterogeneous semantic classes of experience predicates, an oblique experiencer occurs with more specific lexical categories, that is, the predicate like/please on the one hand and predicates of negative experience on the other. Interestingly, negative experiences of being sad, sick or unlucky are syntactically associated with oblique experiencers much more commonly than their correspondent positive experiences of being happy, healthy or lucky. This asymmetrical representation of negative and positive experiences has parallels in other language families and may have a cognitive motivation, whereby bad physical or psychological conditions are conceptualized as external forces attacking unwilling humans who have no control of them. This may be relevant not only for the currently debated issue of Indo-European argument marking, but also for an integration of semantic and cognitive principles into historical linguistics.
Keywords: argument structure, non-canonical subject marking, experience predicates, semantics, cognitive factors, Indo-European
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Experience predicates with productive canonical subject marking
  • 3.Experience predicates with productive non-canonical subject marking
    • 3.1Semantics and markedness in experience predicates
    • 3.2The predicate like
    • 3.3Predicate of negative experience
      • 3.3.1Predicates of suffering
      • 3.3.2Predicates of illness
      • 3.3.3 Predicates of fear
      • 3.3.4 be sorry vs. be happy
  • 4.Comparison with other semantic accounts of IE experience predicates
    • 4.1Possible vs. natural expressions of experience predicates in different languages
    • 4.2Predicates of knowledge
    • 4.3Predicates of volition
    • 4.4Predicates of physical experience
  • 5.An implicational hierarchy for IE experience predicates
  • 6.Syntactic change of (non-)canonical subject marking
  • 7.Syntactic reconstruction of (non-)canonical subject marking
    • 7.1Different research questions regarding syntactic reconstruction
    • 7.2Reconstructability of PIE non-canonical subject marking
    • 7.3Reconstructability of the PIE active-stative alignment
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.34.3.03vit
References (173)
References
Adams, Douglas. 1988. Tocharian historical phonology and morphology. New Haven: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Adams, Douglas. 2013. A Dictionary of Tocharian B, revised and greatly enlarged, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, R. M. W. Dixon, Masayuki Onishi (eds.). 2001. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, Amrit. 2004. Experiencer datives in Kannada. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.),vol. 11, 1–24.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1976. The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society 61. 1–21.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2000. The subject is nominative! On obsolete axioms and their deep-rootedness. In Carl Erik Lindberg & Steffen Nordahl Lund (eds.), 17th Scandinavian conference of linguistics, 93–117. Odense: Institute of Language and Communication.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Department of Scandinavian Languages: Lund University.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Studies in Germanic typology, 101–138. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 391. 439–472. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2009. The origin of the oblique subject construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson & Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages, 179–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard Jenset, Barbara McGillivray. 2012. The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 361. 511–47. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European: The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2009. Residues as an aid in internal reconstruction. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & ‎Thomas Olander (eds.), Internal reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, results, and problems, 17–31. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
Bedrosian, Matthias. 1879. Classical Armenian to English dictionary. Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy.Google Scholar
Bennet, Charles. 1910–1914. Syntax of Early Latin. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1952. La construction passive du parfait transitif. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 481. Reprinted in Émile Benveniste. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri Subbarao (eds.). 2004. Non-nominative subjects. 21vols Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999. Grammatical relations, agreement, and genetic stability. Ms. University of California, Berkeley. [URL].
Bossong, Georg. 1997. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 259–294. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Buttmann, Philip. 1840. Lexilogus or critical examination of the meaning and etymology of numerous Greek words and passages, intended principally for Homer and Hesiod (translated and edited with explanatory notes and copious indexes by J. Fishlake), 2nd edn. London: Murray. Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph & Janda, 602–623. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Alice Harris. 2002. Syntactic reconstruction and demythologizing ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’. Journal of Linguistics 381. 599–618. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciakciak, Emmanuele. 1837. Dizionario armeno-italiano. Venezia: Tipografia Mechitarista di S. Lazzaro.Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert, Gabriella Hermon & S. N. Sridhar. 1980. The acquisition of subjecthood. Language 561. 719–743. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2008. Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung 1211. 94–113.Google Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2009. Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 1221. 182–207.Google Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2010a. Análisis del dativo en construcciones impersonales: los conceptos de sujeto y de semisujeto en griego antiguo. Emerita 781. 249–273. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz. 2010b. Nota sobre Odisea 1.7. Exemplaria Classica 141. 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, 55–72. Boston: Kluwer. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Probal. 2004. Some non-nominative subjects in Bangla. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), vol. 11, 129–140.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1985. Experiencers and patients as subjects in Hindi-Urdu. In Arlene Zide, David Magier & Erich Schiller (eds.), Proceedings of the conference on participant roles: South Asia and adjacent areas, 160–178. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in Hindi-Urdu. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), vol. 11, 141–168.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart (eds.). 2009. Differential Subject Marking. Berlin: Springer. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1893, 1897, 1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger, 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 251. 108–127. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dihle, Albrecht. 1982. The theory of will in classical antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (ed.). 2004. A companion to linguistic anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas. 2002. Ethnosyntax: Introduction. In Nicholas Enfield (ed.), Ethnosyntax, 30–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2014. Experiential constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic reconstruction: an introduction to theory and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 2015. Phonological reconstruction. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), 49–71.Google Scholar
Friedrich Johannes. 1960. Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas & Vjaceslav Ivanov. 1995 [1984]. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (translated from Russian by Johanna Nichols). Berlin: de Gruyter. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gante, Christiane. 2008. Objektkasus im Indogermanischen. Hamburg: Grin Verlag.Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan & ‎James Byrnes (eds.). 1991. Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann. 1996 [1873]. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 6th ed. revised by Maria Kozianka.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1993. The language builder. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 54–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 53–84.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja Liisa. & Tuomas Huumo (eds.). 2015. Subjects in constructions – canonical and non-canonical. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hernández Muñoz, Felipe. 1992. βούλομαι y ἐθέλω en Demóstenes. In Joana Zaragoza & Antoni González Senmartí (eds.), Homenatge a Josep Alsina, 63–67. Tarragona: Tarragona Diputació.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik. 2006. From case to adpositions: The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjemslev, Louis. 1935. La catégorie des cas: étude de grammaire générale I1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1990. Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In Verma & Mohanan (eds.), 119–139.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry & Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann & Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2013. Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In Seržant & Leonid (eds.), 257–282.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Nicole Nau (eds.). 2014. Grammatical relations and their non-canonical encoding in Baltic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hook, Peter. 1990. Experiencers in South Asian languages: A gallery. In Verma & Mohanan (eds.), 319–334.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick & Joseph Salmons (eds.). 2015. The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–299. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beiträge zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbeteutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle de Linguistique de Prague 61. 240–288.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. Brower (ed.), On translation, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2004. The possessor-experiencer dative in Malayalam. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), I1, 227–244.Google Scholar
Jensen, Hans. 1959. Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jensen, Hans. 1964. Altarmenische Chrestomathie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2013. Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. Studies in Language 371. 675–691. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard Janda (eds). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2009. Case and the typology of transitivity. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 356–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klaiman, Miriam. 1980. Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 511. 275–295. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kölligan, Daniel. 2013. Non-canonical subject marking: Genitive subjects in Classical Armenian. In Seržant & Kulikov (eds.), 73–90.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages: Grammar and typology, II1, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1955. Tocharisch. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang. 1971. Tocharisch, Nachdruck mit Zusätzen und Berichtigungen. Leiden & Cologne: Brill.Google Scholar
Krause, Wolfgang & Werner Thomas. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, I, Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1935. Études indo-européennes. Krakow: Gebethner & Wolff.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakshmi Bai, B. 2004. Acquisition of dative subjects in Tamil. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), I1, 245–267.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 2015. Interpreting alphabetic orthographies: Early Middle English spelling. In Honeybone & Salmons (eds.), 100–120.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred. 1989. Problems in Proto-Indo European grammar: Residues from Pre-Indo-European active structure. General Linguistics 291. 228–246.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred. 2002. Pre-Indo-European. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 411.)Google Scholar
Lewis, Charlton & Charles Short. 1963 [1879]. A new Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Liddell, Henry, Robert Scott, Henry Jones. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon: With a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon. 9th ed.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David (ed.). 2002a. Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 2002b. Myths and the prehistory of grammar. Journal of Linguistics 381. 619–626. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rix, HelmutLIV = Rix, Helmut (ed.). 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2011. Zur Validität linguistischer Theorien in der Indogermanistik. In Thomas Krisch (ed.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, 321–330. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2010. Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia lux, 249–264. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Madden, John. 1975. Boulomai and thelō. The vocabulary of purpose from Homer to Aristotle. New Haven: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska (eds.). 2011. Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malzahn, Melanie. 2010. The Tocharian verbal system. Leiden & Boston: Brill. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, Michael, Demetra Katis, Annalisa Margheri. 2000. Can grammar make you feel different? In Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity, 53–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik, I, Einleitung, Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1913. Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Vienna: Imprimerie des PP. Mekhitharistes. 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Minassian, Martiros. 1976. Manuel pratique d’arménien ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mistry, P. J. 2004. Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati. In Peri Bhaskarao & Karumuri Subbarao (eds.), II1, 1–32. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. Levels of linguistic structure and the rate of change. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 301–332. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1899. A Sanskrit-English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie. 2012. Hindi. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Murray, A.. 1919. Homer. The Odyssey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nagy, Gregory. 2013. The Ancient Greek hero. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Tobie & Lucien Hounkpatin. 1993. Oro Lè – la puissance de la parole en psychoanalyse et dans les systèmes thérapeutiques yorubas. Revue Française de Psychanalyse 571. 787–805. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Joseph & Janda (eds.), 283–310.Google Scholar
Niemeier, Susanne & René Dirven (eds.). 1997. The language of emotion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2004. Subjectless clauses in Irish. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), II1, 57–82.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001a. Introduction: Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 11–52.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2001b. Non-canonically marked A/S in Bengali. In Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi (eds.), 113–148.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Micheal. 1995. Learning Irish. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ottenheimer, Harriet. 2006. The anthropology of language. Belmont: Thomson.Google Scholar
Glare, P.OLD = Glare, P. 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panieri, Luca. 2015. A new look at the Indo-European verb. Milan: Lulu.Google Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2008. Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Puhvel, Jaan. 1984–. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ramonienė, Meilutė & Ian Press. 1996. Colloquial Lithuanian. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rani, A. Usha & V. Sailaja. 2004. Acquisition of non-nominative subject in Telegu. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), II1, 209–222.Google Scholar
Rankin, Robert. 2003. The comparative method. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), 183–212. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rovai, Francesco. 2007. Tratti attivi in latino. Il caso del genere. Pisa: Università di Pisa dissertation.Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William. 1987. A Lithuanian historical syntax. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Schmid, Josef. 2006. Die freien Dative. In Vilmos Ágel et al. (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz, II1, 951–963. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik des klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja. 2015. An approach to syntactic reconstruction. In Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 117–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja & Leonid Kulikov (eds.). 2013. The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sieg, Emil. 1944. Übersetzungen aus dem Tocharischen, I1. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Sieg, Emil. 1952. Übersetzungen aus dem Tocharischen, II1. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Sieg, Emil & Wilhelm Siegling. 1949–1953. Tocharische Sprachreste, Sprache B. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Lund: University of Lund dissertation.Google Scholar
Stempel, Reinhard. 1996. Die Diathese im Indogermanischen: Formen und Funktionen des Mediums und ihre sprachhistorischen Grundlagen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner. 1983. Tocharische Sprachreste, Sprache B. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner & Wolfgang Krause. 1964. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, II, Texte und Glossar. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1987. The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic, and typological analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Tischler, Johann. 1977–. Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (ed.). 1998. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 211. 385–396. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem. 1904. The transition from impersonal to the personal constructions in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik de Smeet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 371. 473–489. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra & K. P. Mohanan (eds.). 1990. Experiencer subjects in South-Asian languages. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2015. Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der alten indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2016a. The morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 451. 26–70. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2016b. Areal distribution of argument marking of Indo-European experience predicates. Journal of Indo-European Studies 441. 1–84.Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2016c. Contrastive syntax of argument marking in Latin and in Ancient Greek. In Sergio Neri, Roland Schumann & Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Linguistische, germanistische und indogermanistische Studien Rosemarie Lühr gewidmet, 477–494. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand. 2008. Reconstructing complex structures: A typological perspective. In Gisella Ferraresi & Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction, 97–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wali, Kashi. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in Marathi. In Bhaskarao & Subbarao (eds.), II1, 223–252.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 301. 95–122. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to kill a dragon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1999. Emotions across languages and cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wifstrand, Alfred. 1942. Die griechischen Verba für Wollen. Eranos 401. 16–36.Google Scholar
Zeilfelder, Susanne. 2004. Gibt es nullstellige Verben? In Maria Kozianka, Rosemarie Lühr & Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Indogermanistik – Germanistik – Linguistik, 249–259. Hamburg: Kovač.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Martzloff, Vincent
2024. L’albanien (albanais du Caucase). Lalies 42 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.