Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:4 (2023) ► pp.830869
References
Allen, Shanley E. M. & Heike Schröder
2003Preferred Argument Structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 301–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1985Case markers, case and grammatical relations: An addendum to Goddard. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5(1). 79–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
2015Historical discourse analysis. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 11, 222–243. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Clay Beckner
2010Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 827–855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper
2001Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & James L. McClelland
2005Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22(2–4). 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman
1999The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4). 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
1997Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 231. 378–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
(ed.) 1980The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cooreman, Ann
1988Ergativity in Dyirbal discourse. Linguistics 26(5). 717–746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooreman, A., B. Fox & T. Givón
1984Discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8(1). 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corston-Oliver, Simon H.
2003Core arguments and the inversion of the nominal hierarchy in Roviana. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 273–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
1972The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1977A grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 21, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby
(eds.) 2003Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark
1987Grammatical relations in Acehnese. Studies in Language 11(2). 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
England, Nora C. & Laura Martin
2003Issues in the comparative argument structure analysis in Mayan narratives. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 131–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, Caleb
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara
1981Body part syntax: Towards a universal characterization. Studies in Language 5(3). 323–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A.
1987The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolute hypothesis. Language 63(4). 856–870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. & Sandra A. Thompson
1990A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66(2). 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol & Laura D. Crain
2003Beyond Preferred Argument Structure: Sentences, pronouns, and given referents. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 197–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gertds, Donna B.
1998Incorporation. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 84–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1983Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff
1982Case systems and case marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2(2). 167–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell
2016The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92(3). 591–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harada, S. I.
1976Honorifics. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Japanese generative grammar, 499–561. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey
1980Whither ergativity? A review article [on Frans Plank 1979 (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press]. Linguistics 18(9–10). 877–910.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C.
1989Verbless presentation and the discourse basis of ergativity. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 25(2). 123–137.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 131. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry H.
1977The syntax of body parts. Haya grammatical structure (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6), 99–117. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
1996Preferred argument structure and subject role in American English conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 25(5). 675–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumagai, Yoshiharu
2006Information management in intransitive subjects: Some implications for the Preferred Argument Structure theory. Journal of Pragmatics 38(6). 670–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumpf, Lorraine E.
1992Preferred argument in second language discourse: A preliminary study. Studies in Language 16(2). 369–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kurebito, Megumi
2001Noun incorporation in Koryak. In Osahito Miyaoka & Fubito Endo (eds.), Languages of the North Pacific Rim, vol. 61, 29–57. Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Litvinov, Viktor P. & Kofi H. Agbodjo
1988Resultative in Ewe. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 231–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlan, Francesca
1976Noun incorporation and discourse reference in Modern Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 42(3). 177–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minami, Fujio
1993Gendai Nihongo bunpoo no rinkaku [Outline of Modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1984The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4). 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015Discourse and grammar. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 11, 11–41. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nasilov, Dmitrij M.
1988Stative, resultative and perfective in Uzbek. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 221–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
(ed.) 1988Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2001Where is functional explanation? Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 37(2). 99–122.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, Elizabeth
1990Discourse pressure, genre and grammatical alignment – after Du Bois. Studies in Language 14(2). 365–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okutsu, Keiichirō
1996Hukabunri shoyū to shoyūsha idō [Inalienable possession and possessor float]. In his Shūi Nihonbunpōron [Studies in Japanese grammar: Selected writings], 267–281. Tokyo: Hituzi. (Originally published in 1983 in Todai Ronkyū [Bulletin of Tokyo Metropolitan University], vol. 20.)Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1979Ergativity, syntactic typology and universal grammar: Some past and present viewpoints. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 3–36. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M.
1984Whither radical pragmatics? In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984), 139–149. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1911The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist n.s. 13(2). 250–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senge, Chikako
2015A grammar of Wanyjirra, a language of Northern Australia. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis.
Smith, Wendy
Thompson, Sandra A.
1997Discourse motivations for the core-oblique distinction as a language universal. In Akio Kamio (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1981The Djaru language of Kimberley, Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
1986Topicality in ergative and accusative languages. Nagoya Working Papers in Linguistics 21. 174–258. Nagoya: University of Nagoya.Google Scholar
1988aErgativity, accusativity and topicality. The Journal of the Faculty of Letters Nagoya University 1001. 1–71.Google Scholar
1988bAntipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Passive and voice, 595–649. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991Sekai no gengo to Nihongo [The world’s languages and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
1995The possession cline in Japanese and other languages. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 565–630. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009Sekai no gengo to Nihongo [The world’s languages and Japanese]. Rev. edn. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
2011A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Inalienable possession in Japanese, English and Warrongo. In Prashant Pardeshi & Taro Kageyama (eds.), Handbook of Japanese contrastive linguistics, 557–585. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2019Danwa no nookakusee wa bunpoo no nookakusee o keeseesuru ka? [Does ergativity in discourse shape ergativity in grammar?] Paper presented at the 158th meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, Hitotsubashi University, 22 June.
Van Valin, Robert D.
1980On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50(4). 303–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & William A. Foley
1980Role and reference grammar. In Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax, 329–352. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaxtin, Nikolaj B.
1988Resultative in Asiatic Eskimo. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 199–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhaar, John W. M.
1985On iconicity and hierarchy. Studies in Language 9(1). 21–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volodin, Aleksandr P.
1988Resultative and perfect passive in Finnish. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 469–477. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1981Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1(1). 43–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar