Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:1 (2019) ► pp.120–194

Two types of morphologically expressed non-verbal predication

ORCID logo | Scuola Normale Superiore
| James Cook University
| CNRS
The morphological expression of non-verbal predication is a geographically widespread, although not very frequent, typological feature. This paper highlights the existence of two radically contrasting types of non-verbal predicative inflection. Construction A has already been described in the literature. It consists of attaching person-sensitive inflection markers to non-verbal predicates, possibly extending this treatment to adverbs and adverbial phrases (locational and temporal), pronouns and quantifiers. This type is well attested in Uralic, Turkic, and Paleosiberian, as well as in some Amazonian language families (most notably Chicham), but it has also been pointed out for some sparse languages of Oceania and Africa. Such non-verbal person inflections diachronically stem from incorporation of conjugated copula elements. Construction B, by contrast, is much rarer and is described here for the first time. It also consists of a dedicated morphological form of the non-verbal predicate (limited, however, to nouns and adjectives), but such form stands out as morphologically lighter than any other form to be found in nouns or adjectives in argument or attribute position. While the latter forms carry some kind of case marker, the noun/adjective predicate merely consists (or historically did) of the word’s root. This type of construction can be found in the small Zamucoan family and still survives in some Tupí-Guaraní languages. Diachronic inspection of Semitic indicates, however, that this predicative strategy was possibly adopted in some ancient varieties, although at later stages it intertwined with the expression of referential specificity. The paper compares the two construction types, highlighting similarities and differences.
Keywords: non-verbal predication, nominal predication, predicate vs argument/attribute, copular clauses, typological linguistics, Amazonian languages, Arawak, Chicham, Chaco languages, Movima, Paleosiberian, Semitic, Tupí-Guaraní, Turkic, Uralic, Zamucoan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Setting the scene
    • 1.2Semantic classification of non-verbal predication
    • 1.3Structure of this paper
  • 2.Construction A
    • 2.1Prototypical construction A in Mordvin (Finno-Volgaic)
    • 2.2Prototypical construction A in Turkic
    • 2.3Construction A in Paleosiberian
    • 2.4Construction A in Amazonia and beyond
    • 2.5Non-prototypical construction A in Samoyedic and Arawak
  • 3.Construction B in Zamucoan
    • 3.1A threefold morphological distinction
    • 3.2Proper-inclusion predication in Zamucoan
    • 3.3Copula construction; identity and existential predication
    • 3.4Morphological and diachronic addenda, with a note on the indeterminate form
  • 4.Construction B in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.1Proper-inclusion predication in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.2Existential and possessive predication in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.3Identity predication in Tupí-Guaraní
    • 4.4Diachronic and areal addenda on the Tupí-Guaraní argument case
    • 4.5Interim summary
  • 5.Construction B in Semitic
    • 5.1Evidence of construction B in Akkadian and Aramaic
    • 5.2The decline of construction B in Semitic
    • 5.3Relics of construction B in modern Arabic and Maltese
    • 5.4Synopsis
  • 6.‘Deviant’ cases
    • 6.1Construction B in Saami (Finno-Saamic) and Nganasan (Samoyedic)
    • 6.2Construction A in Semitic
  • 7.General discussion
    • 7.1Two types of non-verbal predicative inflection
    • 7.2The role of omnipredicativity
    • 7.3Identity predication and predicative adjectives
    • 7.4Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 12 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17013.ber
References (132)
References
Aasmae, Niina. 2014. An introductory course of the Erzya language. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Paul Ariste Soome.Google Scholar
Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1997. O sufixo onomático e a preservação das consoantes do fim de raiz em Guarani paraguaio. Boletim da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística 201. 11–19.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word. A cross-linguistic typology, 42–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2003. A grammar of Tariana, from north-west Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language contact and pragmatic notions: Tariana in its multi-lingual context. In José Camacho, Rodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo & Liliana Sánchez (eds.), Information structure in indigenous languages of the Americas: Syntactic approaches, 17–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012. The languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Werner. 1989. Lehrbuch des Neuwestaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Lemos Pe. A. 1956. Curso de tupi antigo: Gramática, exercícios, textos. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria São José.Google Scholar
Beeston, Alfred F. L. 1984. Sabaic grammar (Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 6). Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Behnke, Anja. 2010. Die Struktur der Nominalphrase im Tersaamischen. Berlin: Humboldt Universität MA thesis.Google Scholar
Berta, Árpád. 1998. Tatar and Bashkir. In Lars Johansson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 283–300. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bertheau, Ernest. 1843. Gregorii Bar Hebraei qui et Abulpharag grammatica linguae syriacae in metro ephraemeo. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2006. On the tense-aspect system of Bolivian Chaco Guaraní. In Wolf Dietrich (ed.), Guaraní y ‘mawetí-tupí-guaraní’. Estudios históricos y descriptivos sobre una familia lingüística de América del Sur, 105–167. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
. 2014 [2009]. Ayoreo. In Mily Crevels & Pieter C. Muysken (eds.), Lenguas de Bolivia, Tomo 3: Oriente, 369–413. La Paz: Plural Editores. English version [Ayoreo (Zamuco). A grammatical sketch, 2009] at [URL]. (30 March 2018.)
Blau, Joshua. 2006. Some reflections on the disappearance of cases in Arabic. In Pier Giorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Loquentes linguis: Studi in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, 79–90. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Borges, Mônica V. 2006. Aspectos fonológicos e morfossintáticos do avá-canoeiro (tupi-guarani). Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Briggs, Janet. 1972. Quiero contarles unos casos del Beni. Cochabamba: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano & Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Dirección Nacional de Antropología. 21 vols.Google Scholar
Buccellati, Giorgio. 1968. An interpretation of the Akkadian stative as a nominal sentence. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 271. 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butts, Aaron M. 2013. Language change in the wake of empire: Syriac in its Greco-Roman context. Chicago: University of Chicago doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Cabral, Ana S. A. C.. 1995. Contact-induced language change in the Western Amazon: the non-genetic origin of the Kokama language. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2001. Observações sobre a história do morfema -a da família tupi-guarani. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 133–162. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Cabral, Ana S. A. C., Ariel P. C. E. Silva & Suseile A. Sousa. 2013. Expressão do caso argumentativo em três línguas tupí-guaraní: asuriní do tocantins, avá-canoeiro e zo’é. Anais do SILEL. Simpósio Internacional de Letras e Linguística 3(1). 1–17.Google Scholar
Carvalho, Márcia G. P. de. 2001. Sinais de morte ou de vitalidade? Mudanças estruturais na língua tembé: Contribuição ao estudo dos efeitos de contato lingüístico na Amazônia Oriental. Belém: Universidade Federal do Pará MA thesis.Google Scholar
Carver, Daniel E. 2016. The Akkadian stative: A non-finite verb. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 531. 1–24.Google Scholar
Castrén, Matthias A. 1858. Versuch einer jenissei-ostjanischen und kottischen Sprachlehre. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Chomé, Ignace. 1958 [ante 1745]. Arte de la lengua zamuca. Présentation de Suzanne Lussagnet. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 471. 121–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciucci, Luca. 2016 [2013]. Inflectional morphology in the Zamucoan languages. Asunción: CEADUC.Google Scholar
Ciucci, Luca & Pier Marco Bertinetto. 2015. A diachronic view of the Zamucoan verb in-flection. Folia Linguistica Historica 36(1). 19–87.Google Scholar
. 2017. Possessive inflection in Proto-Zamucoan: A reconstruction. Diachronica 341. 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Possessive classifiers in Zamucoan. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Elena Mihas (eds.), Genders and classifiers: A cross-linguistic typology, 144–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. In preparation. Towards the reconstruction of Proto-Zamucoan nominal suffixation.
Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy. Linguistics and Philosophy 381. 377–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. Forthcoming. Inverse-locational predication and other ‘existential’ constructions in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics.
Décsy, Gy. 1970. Das Existentialverb in den prädikativen Fügungen des Selkupischen. In Wolf-gang Schlachter (ed.), Symposion über die Syntax der uralischen Sprachen, 50–64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Wolf. 1986. El idioma chiriguano. Gramática, textos, vocabulario. Madrid: Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
. 2001. Categorias lexicais nas línguas tupi-guarani (visão comparativa). In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 21–37. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2018. Tupian Languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. [URL]. (30 March, 2018.) DOI logo
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 21, 159–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobson, Rose M. 1988. Aspectos da língua kayabi. Cuiabá: Sociedade Internacional de Lingüística.Google Scholar
Fabre, Alain. 2016. Gramática de la lengua nivacle (familia mataguayo, Chaco Paraguayo). München: Lincom.Google Scholar
Feist, Timothy. 2010. A Grammar of Skolt Saami. Manchester: University of Manchester doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Fullilove, William. 2014. Definiteness in Qumran Aramaic. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
García Martínez, Florentino & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study edition. Vol. 11. Leiden – Boston & Grand Rapids (Michigan): Brill & Eerdmans.Google Scholar
. 1998. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study edition. Vol. 21. Leiden – Boston & Grand Rapids (Michigan): Brill & Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Georg, Stephan. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak). Kent, UK: Global Oriental. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1983. On Syriac sentence structure. In Michael Sokoloff (ed.), Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic literary tradition, 97–140. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. On predicative adjectives and Syriac syntax. Bibliotheca Orientalis 481. 716–726.Google Scholar
Guildea, Spike. 2018. Reconstructing the copula and nonverbal predicate constructions in Cariban. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2007. External plural markers in Semitic: A new assessment. In Cynthia L. Miller (ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic linguistics presented to Gene B. Gragg, 123–138. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
. 2013. Case in Semitic. Roles, relations and reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2018. Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helimski, Eugene. 1998a. Nganasan. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 480–515. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1998b. Selkup. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 548–579. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication. Theory, typology, diachrony. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heusinger, Klaus von. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics 91. 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higham, Alice, Maxine Morarie & Greta Paul. 2000. Ayoré-English dictionary. Sanford, FL: New Tribes Mission. 31 vols.Google Scholar
Huehnergard, John. 1987. Stative, predicative form, pseudo-verb. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 461. 215–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. A grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
. 2017. Arabic in its Semitic context. In Ahmad Al-Jallad (ed.), Arabic in context, 3–34. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrow, Otto. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic languages. In Robert Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic languages, 334–377. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2005. Der bestimmte Artikel im Aramäischen – ein Blick auf 3000 Jahre Sprachgeschichte. In Bogdan Burtea, Josef Tropper & Helen Younansardaroud (eds.), Studia semitica et semitohamitica. Festschrift für Rainer Voigt anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstages am 17. Januar 2004, 137–150. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jensen, Cheryl. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. In Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 41., 399–618. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1999. Tupí-Guaraní. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The Amazonian languages, 125–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, Lars. 1998. The structure of Turkic. In Lars Johansson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 30–66. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joosten, Jan. 1989. The predicative adjective in the status emphaticus in Syriac. Bibliotheca Orientalis 461. 18–24.Google Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 219–248. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kelm, Heinz. 1964. Das Zamuco: eine lebende Sprache. Anthropos 591. 457–516, 770–842.Google Scholar
Keresztes, Lázló. 1998. Mansi. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 387–427. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar (31 vols.). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Remarks on the historical development and syntax of the copula in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Aramaic Studies 161. 234–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, Norbertus J. C. 2000. Nouns and verbs: the verbal nature of the Akkadian stative. Orientalia 691. 21–71.Google Scholar
Kraus, Fritz R. 1984. Nominalsätze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1972. Studies in Semitic grammar and metrics. Wrocław: Zakładim Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel. 1994. Une grammaire omniprédicative. Essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CRNS Editions.Google Scholar
. 2004. The features of omnipredicativity in Classical Nahuatl. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 571. 49–69.Google Scholar
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1989. Les parties du discours. Sémantique et syntaxe. PUF, Paris.Google Scholar
Magalhâes, Marina M. S. 2016. Os dois diferentes tipos de sintagmas nominais complexos com núcleo verbal estativo da língua guajá. In Francesc Queixalós & Dioney M. Gomes (eds.), O sintagma nominal em línguas amazônicas, 187–202. Campinas: Pontes Editores.Google Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna. 2003. Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh. A contribution to a typology of polysynthesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 2006. Stative verbs vs. nouns in Sateré-Mawé and the Tupian family. In Grażyna J. Rowicka & Eithne B. Carlin (eds.), What’s in a verb?, 189–214. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2014. On the pre-Columbian origin of Proto-Omagua-Kokama. Journal of Language Contact 7(2). 309–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2011. Skolt Saami: A typological profile. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Ai-kakauskirja & Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 931. 111–145.Google Scholar
Mihas, Elena. 2015. A grammar of Alto Perené (Arawak). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Lise. 2005. Copular clause. Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morarie, Maxine. 1980. Simplified Ayoreo grammar. Cochabamba: Publicaciones Nueva Vida (mimeo).Google Scholar
Morarie, Maxine & Janet Briggs. 1985. Génesis erámi taningai. Cochabamba & Asunción: Misión Nuevas Tribus.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Copular sentences. In Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdjik, Rob Goedemans & Bart Hollebrandse (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. 21, 1–23. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Müller, Ana & Luciana Sanchez-Mendes. 2016. The semantics of bare nouns in Karitiana. In Francesc Queixalós & Dioney M. Gomes (eds.), O sintagma nominal em línguas amazônicas, 241–261. Campinas: Pontes Editores.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Galina A. Otaina. 2013. A syntax of the Nivkh language. The Amur dialect. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins (translation of the Russian original). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Theodor. 1898 [1966]. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2018. Nonverbal predication and copula constructions in Aguaruna. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Ama-zonian languages, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overall, Simon, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.). 2018a. Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Nonverbal predication in Amazonia: Typological and diachronic considerations. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 1–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pat-El, Na’ma. 2009. The development of the Semitic definite article: A syntactic approach. Journal of Semitic Studies 541. 19–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, Germán. 2015. A grammar of Wampis. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio. 2005. Ripercussioni sintattiche in conseguenza dell’introduzione dell’articolo determinativo proclitico in semitico. Aula Orientalis 231. 175–184.Google Scholar
Praça, Walkíria N. 2007. Morfossintaxe da língua tapirapé. Brasília, Brazil: Universidade de Brasília doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc. 2001. Le suffixe référentiant en émérillon. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 115–132. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2006. The primacy and fate of predicativity in Tupi-Guarani. In Ximena Lois & Valentina Vapnarsky (eds.), Lexical categories and root classes in Am-erindian languages, 249–287. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reinisch, Leo. 1893. Die Bedauye-Sprache in Nordost-Afrika. Vienna: Gewold. 21 vols.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon D. 1996. Argumento e predicado em tupinambá. Boletim da Associação Brasileira de Lingüística 191. 57–66.Google Scholar
2001. Sobre a natureza do caso argumentativo. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 103–114. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon D. & Ana S. A. C. Cabral. 2012. Tupían. In Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds.), The Indigenous languages of South America. A comprehen-sive guide, 495–574. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2002. My hammock = I have a hammock. Possessed nouns constituting pos-sessive clauses in Emérillon (Tupi-Guarani). In Ana S. A. C. Cabral & Aryon D. Rodrigues (eds.), Línguas indígenas brasileiras. Fonologia, gramática e história. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL, 392–402. Belém, Brazil: CNPQ & Universidade federal do Para.Google Scholar
. 2003. Morphosyntaxe de l’émérillon. Une langue tupi-guarani de Guyane française. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2018. Nonverbal predication and the nonverbal clause type of Mojeño Trinita-rio. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 53–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Isabelle. 2013. Nonverbal predication: Copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami languages. An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1988. Der irokesische Sprachtyp (Arbeitspapier 9). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Anne. 2018. Between verb and noun: Explorations into the domain of nonverbal predication in Ecuadorian Secoya. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Guildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do kamaiurá. Língua tupi-guarani do Alto Xingu. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.Google Scholar
. 2001. Classes de palavras e categorias sintático-funcionais em kamaiurá. In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, 39–66. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Souza, Patrícia O. B. 2004. Estudos de aspectos da língua kaiabi (Tupi). Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas MA thesis.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Nominal and locational predication. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]. (27 December, 2017.)
Stone, Gerald. 1980. An introduction to Polish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tropper, Joseph. 2001. Die Herausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Semitischen. Journal of Semitic Studies 461. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. 1966. Linguistic analysis: the non-Bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turunen, Rigina. 2009. A typology of non-verbal predication in Erzya. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 561. 251–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Non-verbal predication in Erzya. Studies on morphosyntactic varia-tion and part of speech distinctions. Helsinki: University of Helsinki doctoral disser-tation.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Matthew & Rosemary Ulrich. 2000. Diccionario I̵shɨro (Chamacoco) – Español / Español – I̵shɨro (Chamacoco). Asunción: Misión Nuevas Tribus Paraguay.Google Scholar
Vallejos, Rosa. 2016. A grammar of Kukama-Kukamiria. A language from the Amazon. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Joshua K. 2014. A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wintschalek, Walter. 1993. Die Areallinguistik am Beispiel syntaktischer Übereinstimmungen im Wolga-Kama-Areal. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wright, William. 1871. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, I. The Syriac texts. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Voigt, Rainer M. 1998. Der Artikel im Semitischen. Journal of Semitic Studies 431. 221–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus (see Heusinger).
Zaicz, Gábor. 1998. Mordva. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.), The Uralic languages, 184–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Bertinetto, Pier Marco
2021. Zamucoan Person Marking as a Perturbed System*. Studia Linguistica 75:2 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Ciucci, Luca
2020. Matter borrowing, pattern borrowing and typological rarities in the Gran Chaco of South America. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Ciucci, Luca
2021. How Historical Data Complement Fieldwork: New Diachronic Perspectives on Zamucoan Verb Inflection*. Studia Linguistica 75:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Ciucci, Luca
2021. How to restructure a grammatical category: the innovative person system of Chamacoco (Zamucoan, northern Paraguay). Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 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.