Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:3 (2023) ► pp.643682
References
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andvik, Erik
2010A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Tshangla. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 418–435. 2nd edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arakawa, Shintaro
2010Seika-go no kakuhyōshiki ni tsuite [on the Tangut case markers]. In Hideo Sawada (ed.), Chibetto=Biruma-kei gengo no bunpō genshō 1: Kaku to sono shūhen [Grammatical phenomena of Tibeto-Burman languages 1: Case-marking and related matters], 153–174. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
2012On the Tangut verb prefixes in ‘Tiansheng Code’. In Irina Popova (ed.), Тангуты в Центральной Азии: сборник статей в честь 80-летия профессора. Е.И.Кычанова [Tanguts in Central Asia: a collection of articles marking the 80th anniversary of Prof. E. I. Kychanov], 58–71. Moscow: Oriental Literature.Google Scholar
2018Seikago no sōsū setsuoji ni tsuite [On the “dual” suffix of Tangut]. In Tooru Hayasi, Tomoyuki Kubo, Setsu Fujishiro, Noriko Ohsaki, Yasuhiro Kishida & Mutsumi Sugahara (eds.), Yūrashia sho gengo no tayōsei to dōtai 20 gō kinengō [Diversity and dynamics of Eurasian languages: The 20th commemorative volume], 69–83. Tokyo: Consortium of Studies of Eurasian Languages.Google Scholar
2019Seika-go no shieki ni tsuite [On the causative construction in Tangut] In Takumi Ikeda (ed.), Shina=Chibetto-kei sho gengo no bunpō genshō 2: Shieki no shosō [Aspects of causative construction], 135–147. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew
2009Case syncretism. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 219–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beaudouin, Mathieu
2021Localiser en tangoute: entre continuums et bipartitions. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 116(1): 327–346.Google Scholar
2022Tangut verb agreement: optional or not? Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 45(1): 93–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Accepted. Tangut and Horpa languages: some shared morphosyntactic features. Language and Linguistics.
Blansitt, Edward
1988Datives and allatives. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 173–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985Empirische universalienforschung: Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1991Differential object marking Romance and beyond. In Dieter Wanner & Douglas A. Kibbee (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Shanshan Lü
2022A semantic typology of location, existence, possession and copular verbs: Areal patterns of polysemy in Mainland East and Southeast Asia. Linguistics 60(1): 1–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2019Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(3). Available at: DOI logo (last access 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva
2011Object and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2011“Optional” “ergativity” in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2): 9–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
(eds.) 2000Changing valency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Endalew, Assefa
2017Multifunctional Morpheme jə- and -m in Ezha: An Ethio-Semitic Language. Macrolinguistics 6(2): 24–36.Google Scholar
Gates, Jesse P.
2021A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: EHESS PhD dissertation.
Genetti, Carol
1997Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language 211(1): 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007A grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1994The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Voice and Inversion, 3–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gong, Hwang-cherng
2001Xīxià yǔ dòngcí de rénchēng hūyìng yǔ yīnyùn zhuǎnhuàn [Personal Agreements and Phonological Alternations in the Tangut Verb]. Language and Linguistics 2(1): 21–67.Google Scholar
2003Tangut. In Randy J. LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 602–620. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun
2017Verbs stems in Tangut and their orthography. SCRIPTA 91. 29–48.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997Possession: Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Grammaticalization of cases. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 458–469. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1977The Gunnän-Gurage languages. Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W.
2019The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honkasalo, Sami
2019A grammar of Eastern Geshiza: A culturally anchored description. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.
Iemmolo, Giorgio
2011Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD dissertation.
Ikeda, Takumi
2012Verbs of Existence in Tangut and Mu-nya. In Nathan W. Hill (ed.), Medieval Tibeto-Burman languages IV1, 191–210. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume
2004Phonologie et morphologie du japhug (rGyalrong). Paris: Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot PhD dissertation.
2007Textes tangoutes I, nouveau recueil sur l’amour parental et la piété filiale (Languages of the World/Text Collections 25). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2009The origin of vowel alternations in the Tangut verb. Language and Linguistics 10(1): 17–27.Google Scholar
2011The Structure of the Tangut verb. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 39(2): 419–443.Google Scholar
2014Esquisse de phonologie et de morphologie historique du tangoute. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Tangut, Gyalrongic, Kiranti and the nature of person indexation in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan. Linguistics Vanguard. Available at DOI logo (last access 22 March 2022).Google Scholar
2021A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha
2003On the taxonomy of nominal cases in Mongolic. Altai Hakpo 131: 83–90.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenija Borisovna
1975Subject and Object agreement in the Tangut Verb. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2(2): 219–231.Google Scholar
1985Тангутский язык: морфология [The Tangut Language: Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
Kotaka, Yuji
2000Seikago no kakujoshi ni kansuru tōgoronteki kenkyū [A synthetic study of Tangut case particles]. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University PhD dissertation.
Lai, Yunfan
2017Grammaire du khroskyabs de Wobzi. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation.
2018Relativisation in Wobzi Khroskyabs and how genitivisation enters it. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2): 219–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021Jiāróngyǔzǔ yǔyán dòngcí de fēnlèi – yǐ Chuòsījiǎ (Lāwùróng) yǔ wéilì [The classification of verbs in Rgyalrongic languages, from a Khroskyabs perspective]. Yǔyánxué lùncóng [Essays on linguistics] 631: 68–95.Google Scholar
Lai, Yunfan, Guillaume Jacques, Xun Gong & Jesse Gates
2020Tangut as a West Rgyalrongic language. Folia Linguistica Historica 41(1): 171–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1992‘Anti-ergative’ Marking in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
2004On Nominal Relational Morphology in Tibeto-Burman. In Ying-chin Lin, Fang-min Hsu, Chun-chih Lee, Jackson T.-S. Sun, Hsiu-fang Yang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Studies on Sino-Tibetan languages: Papers in honour of Professor Hwang-cherng Gong on his seventieth birthday, 43–73. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015Thoughts on grammaticalization (Classics in Linguistics 1). Berlin: Language Science Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Fanwen
2008Xià-Hàn Zìdiǎn [Tangut-Chinese Dictionary]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lin, Xiangrong
1993Jiāróngyǔ yánjiū [A study of the Rgyalrong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lin, You-jing
2016Jiāróngyǔ Zhuókèjīhuà yǔfǎ biāozhù wénběn [Cogtse Rgyalrong texts: Fully analyzed spontaneous narratives with an updated sketch grammar of the language]. Beijing: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.Google Scholar
2017How grammar encodes space in Cogtse Rgyalrong. Himalayan Linguistics 16(1): 59–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie
2010Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej L. Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ronny
2005The morpheme yä- in Muher. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 19(1): 40–63.Google Scholar
2011Gurage. In Stefan Weninger (ed.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook, 1220–1257. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, Tara
1994Argument structure in Hindi. California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2004What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 1141: 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Yasuhiko
2018Gyarongo bunpō kenkyū [A reference grammar of the rGyalrong language – Bhola dialect]. Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2014The grammaticalization chain of case functions: Extension and reanalysis of case marking vs. universal of grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 71–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevskij, Nikolaj Aleksandrovich
1960Tангутская филилогия, Исследования и словарь [Tangut Philology, Research and Dictionary]. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.Google Scholar
Nishida, Tatsuo
1989 [2012]Seikago [Tangut]. In Gengogaku Daijiten, vol. 21, 408–429. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Prins, Marielle
2016A grammar of rGyalrong Jiǎomùzú (Kyom-kyo) dialects. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagart, Laurent, Guillaume Jacques, Yunfan Lai, Robin J. Ryder, Valentin Thouzeau, Simon J. Greenhill & Johann-Mattis List
2019Dated language phylogenies shed light on the ancestry of Sino-Tibetan. PNAS 116(21): 10317–10322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Jinbo
2020Tangut language and manuscripts: An introduction. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Jinbo, Zhenhua Huang & Hongyin Nie
1993Lèilín yánjiū [A study on ‘the Forest of Categories’]. Ningxia Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Simon, Camille
2016Morphosyntaxe et sémantique grammaticale du salar et du tibétain de l’Amdo: analyse d’un contact de langues. Paris: Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 PhD dissertation.
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solonin, Kirill
1995Dvendtsat’ Tsarstv. Neizvstnij Pamyatnik Tangutskoi Literatury [Twelve kingdoms: An unknown monument of Tangut literature]. St. Petersburg: Peterburskoe Vostokovedenie.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
2009Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai
1991Cóng cíhuì bǐjiào kàn xīxiàyǔ yǔ zàmiǎn yǔzú qiāngyǔzhī de guānxì [The relationship between Tangut and the Qiangic branch of Tibeto-Burman from the perspective of vocabulary comparison]. Mínzú yǔwén [Minority Languages of China] 2(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S.
2000Parallelism in verb morphology of Sidaba Rgyalrong and Lavrung in Rgyarongic. Language and Linguistics 1(1): 161–190.Google Scholar
2007Morphological causative formation in Shangzhai Horpa. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 2(1): 211–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. & Qianzi Tian
2013Huò’ěr yǔ géxī huà dòngcí duìxié [Verb agreement in Gexi Horpa]. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 7(2): 203–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter
2007Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.
Wang, Jingru
1933Lùn Sìchuān Qiāngyǔ jí Mǐyàoyǔ yǔ Xīxiàyǔ [The Shishiah and the Ch’iang and Minia Languages in Szŭch’uan Province]. In Xīxià Yánjiū, vol. 21, 278–288. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant
2018Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Shuya
2020Le rgyalrong situ de Brag-bar et sa contribution à la typologie de l’expression des relations spatiales: L’orientation et le mouvement associé. Paris: Institut national des langues et des civilisations orientales PhD dissertation
Zhang, Shuya, Guillaume Jacques & Yunfan Lai
2019A study of cognates between Gyalrong languages and Old Chinese. Journal of Language Relationship 17(1): 73–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar