Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:1 (2019) ► pp.143


Apresjan, Juri D.
1995Lexical semantics (synonymic means of language) (In Russian: Лексическая семантика (синонимические средства языка)). Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.Google Scholar
2010A prospectus of the active dictionary of Russian (In Russian: Проспект активного словаря русского языка). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskih kul’tur.Google Scholar
Cena, Resty M.
1971Case opposition in Tagalog. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 101. 133–148.Google Scholar
Chang, Anna Hsiou-chuan
2006A Reference Grammar of Paiwan. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Margaret C. & Joan E. Goetz
1963Pronoun formatives in Amganad Ifugao. Manila: SIL. Goudswaard, Manila: Linguistic Society of Philippines and SIL.Google Scholar
De Guzman, Videa P.
1978Syntactic derivation of Tagalog verbs (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
De Vos, Fiona
2011Essential Tagalog Grammar.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1991Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67.3. 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A.
1997Anthropological Linguistics: an introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1998Symmetrical Voice Systems and Precategoricality in Philippine Languages. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 98 Conference: Workshop on voice and grammatical functions in Austronesian languages, 45–59. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gallego, Maria Kristina S.
2015Ang mga Nominal Marker ng Filipino at Ivatan. Daluyan Journal ng Wikang Filipino, tomo XXI1 2015 65–95.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2005The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Simon Musgrave & Peter K. Austin (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian Languages, 247–293. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hohulin, Richard M. & Elma Lou Hohulin
2014Tuwali Ifugao dictionary ang grammar sketch. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Kess, Joseph Francis
1967Syntactic Features of Tagalog Verbs. University of Hawai’i PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Fernando Zúñiga
2016Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles. In Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Advances in Research on Semantic Roles (Benjamins Current Topis 88), 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1993aAnother look at subjecthood in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 24.2. 1–16.Google Scholar
1993bPhrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Latrouite, Anja
2011Voice and Case in Tagalog: The coding of prominence and orientation. Dusseldorf: Heinrich-Heine Universität PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Malicsi, Jonathan C.
2013Gramar ng Filipino. Quezon City: Sentro ng Wikang Filipino.Google Scholar
Newell, Leonard E.
2005 (1993)Batad Ifugao Dictionary with Ethnographic Notes. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Rachkov, G. E.
1981Introduction to morphology of contemporary Tagalog (In Russian: Vvedenie v morfologiyu sovremennogo tagal’skogo yazyka). Leningrad State University.Google Scholar
Ramos, Teresita V.
1974The Case System of Tagalog Verbs. Pacific Linguistics, Series B. No. 27. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A.
2005Tagalog and Philippine languages. In Philipp Skutch (ed.), Encyclopedia of linguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008Tagalog. In Bernard Comrie (ed.), The World’s Major Languages (2nd edition), chapter 47. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A. & Hsiu-chuan Liao
2004A Brief Syntactic Typology of Philippine Languages. Language and Linguistics 5(2). 433–490.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm & Stacy Fang-ching Teng
2005Formosan Languages and Linguistic Typology. Language and Linguistics 6:4. 739–781.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1961Structural ambiguity in Tagalog. Language Learning 111. 135–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1977Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 8: Grammatical Relations, 279–305. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1993The Subject in Tagalog: Still None of the Above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Number 15. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Fe Otanes
1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley, & Lawrence A. Reid
2009The evolution of focus in Austronesian [Unabridged version of paper published in 1982]. In Elizabeth Zeitoun (ed.), Formosan linguistics: Stanley Starosta’s contributions (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series C6), vol. 21, 329–481. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Nozomi
2016An asymmetry in the acquisition of Tagalog relative clauses. PhD dissertation. Manoa: University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U.
1973Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Andrew Gonzalez (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, 71–91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Klimenko, Sergei
2020. A corpus study ofkasama‘companion’ in Tagalog. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 46:2  pp. 240 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 may 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.