Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp.717–780

Multiple ergatives

From allomorphy to differential agent marking

| Institute of Slavic Studies RAS/RSUH/MSPU, Moscow
This paper presents a cross-linguistic survey of case systems with several non-phonologically distributed markers of ergative case, based on a convenience sample of more than 70 languages from all over the world. It is shown that in most languages the distribution of different ergative markers splits along the lines predicted by the referential hierarchy (local pronouns > non-local pronouns > proper names > kinship terms > humans > nonhumans > inanimates), thus complementing the much better known ergativity splits. Other types of conditioning of “multiple ergatives” include gender, such nominal morphosyntactic features as number and (in)definiteness, as well as clausal morphosyntactic features like tense/aspect, polarity and person of co-arguments. “Fluid” systems where the choice of ergative marker is based on semantic or pragmatic factors are attested as well. The article also discusses the implications of ergative allomorphy and ergative alternations for the typology of ergativity and case marking in general.
Keywords: case, morphology, allomorphy, ergativity, referential hierarchies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The domain of inquiry
  • 3.Language sample and overview of the typology
  • 4.Ergative allomorphy conditioned by lexical-semantic class of the nominal
    • 4.1Two-way systems
      • 1st singular vs. others
      • 2nd singular vs. others
      • 1st person + 2nd singular + 3rd person vs. others
      • Local pronouns vs. others
    • 4.2More than two-way systems
    • 4.3Phonology of allomorphs
    • 4.4Summary
  • 5.Ergative allomorphy conditioned by nominal morphosyntactic features
  • 6.“Multiple ergatives” conditioned by clause-level features
    • 6.1Tense-aspect based “multiple ergatives”
    • 6.2Polarity-based multiple ergatives
    • 6.3Coargument-based “multiple ergatives”
    • 6.4Summary
  • 7.“Fluid” “multiple ergative” marking
  • 8.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.06ark
References (178)
References
Adger, David, Susana Béjar & Daniel Harbour. 2003. Directionality of allomorphy: A reply to Carstairs–McCarthy. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(1). 109–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4). 673–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alekseev, Mikhail & Boris M. Ataev. 1997. Avarskij jazyk. [The Avar language]. Мoscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R., Lea Brown, Alice Gaby & Jacqueline Lecarme. 2006. Life on the edge: There’s morphology there after all! Lingue e linguaggio 5(1). 1–16.Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1997. Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of case-markers. Studies in Language 211. 313–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2014a. O nekotoryх osobennostjax sklonenija v adygskix jazykax [On some peculiarities of declension in the Circassian languages]. In Vladimir A. Plungian (ed.), Jazyk. Konstanty. Peremennye: Pamjati Aleksandra Evgenʹeviča Kibrika [Language. Constants. Variables. To the memory of Alexander Kibrik], 552–563. Saint-Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, P. M. 2014b. Interplay of agglutination, cumulation and overabundance: non-canonical case-number paradigm in Adyghe. Talk at the 16th International Morphology Meeting , Budapest, 29 May–1 June 2014.
Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. Long-distance genitive of negation in Lithuanian. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 37–81. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter K. 2013. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. 2nd Online Edition.Google Scholar
Bailey, T. Grahame. 1924. Grammar of the Shina language. London: The Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bedir Khan, Emir Djeladet & Roger Lescot. 1991. Grammaire kurde (Dialecte kurmandji). Paris: Maissonneuve.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the scope of the referential hierarchy in the typology of grammatical relations. In Greville Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 191–210. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae-Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2013. Exponence of selected inflectional formatives. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2016-04-11.)
Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Taras Zakharko. 2015. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspectives, 7–43. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1979. A Kalkatungu grammar. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 101. 35–71.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia & Daniel Harbour. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1997. Allomorphy and the autonomy of morphology. Folia Linguistica 311. 25–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Allomorphy and the architecture of grammar. In Bert Botma & Roland Noske (eds.), Phonological explorations. Empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues, 9–24. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borgman, Donald M. 1990. Sanuma. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 21, 15–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bowe, Heather J. 1990. Categories, constituents and constituent order in Pitjantjatjara, an Aboriginal language of Australia. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breen, Govan. 1974. Wakaya grammar. Ms.Google Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2002. Le nêlêmwa (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Analyse syntaxique et sémantique. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflextion. London etc: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and principle of contrast. Language 70(4). 737–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. How lexical semantics constrains inflectional allomorphy. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997, 1–24. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Grammatically conditioned allomorphy, paradigmatic structure, and the ancestry constraint. Transactions of the Philological Society 99(2). 223–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charachidzé, Georges. 1989. Ubykh. In B.George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2. The North West Caucasian languages, 359–459. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise and fall of ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfried P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin, London: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1979. Definite and animate direct objects: A natural class. Linguistica Silesiana 31. 13–21.Google Scholar
. 1981. Ergativity and grammatical relations in Kalaw Lagaw Ya (Saibai dialect). Australian Journal of Linguistics 11. 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2016-12-20.)
Coon, Jessica. 2013. TAM split ergativity (parts 1–2). Language and Linguistics Compass 71. 171–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. To appear. Split ergativity is not about ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity. Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Corbett, Greville G. 2008. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. In Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds.), Case and grammatical relations. Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, 1–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Decembrettes, 1–11. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Costa, Raquel Guimarães Romankevicius. 1998. Aspects of ergativity in Marubo (Panoan). The Journal of Amazonian Languages 1(3). 50–103.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daudey, Henriёtte. 2014. A grammar of Wadu Pumi. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Ergative case and the transitive subject: a view from Nez Perce. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 281. 73–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Ergativity. In Artemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Syntax – Theory and analysis. An international handbook. Vol. 11, 654–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart (eds.). 2008. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, Christiane Cunha. 2005. The language of the Apinajé people of Central Brasil. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Döhler, Christian. 2015. Morphological complexity in Komnzo verbs. Presentation from the international conference “Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect”, Leipzig, May 2015.
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Wilfrid H. 1981. Watjarri. In R. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake, The handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 21, 196–272. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dourado, Luciana. 2001. Aspectos morfossintácticos da língua Panará (Jê). Campinas: UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Dourado, Luciana & Spike Gildea. 2008. Object relations in Panará (Jê). Handout of the paper presented at Syntax of the World’s Languages-3 , Berlin, September 2008.
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Position of case affixes. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 2016-04-11.)
Dunn, Michael J. 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 1979. Gumbaynggir. In R. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages, Vol. 11, 244–361. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Edelman, Džoj I. 1983. The Dardic and Nuristani languages. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Emkow, Carola. 2006. A grammar of Araona, an Amazonian language of Northwestern Bolivia. Melbourne: La Trobe University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2015. Inflection in Nen. In Matthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 543–575. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2012. A grammar of Chiapas Zoque. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Involuntary agent constructions are not directly linked to reduced transitivity. Studies in Language 35(2). 311–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: A cross-linguistic study. Lueven: Katholieke Universiteit Lueven doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2010. Distinguishing animacy effects for agents: A case study of Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 30(2). 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, Rohan S. H. 2011. A grammar of Ubykh. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Marília de Nazaré de Oliveira. 2003. Estudo morfossintáctico da língua parkatêjê. Campinas: Universidade de Campinas PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1). 77–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Kevin & Dana Ober. 1991. A sketch of Kalaw Kawaw Ya. In Suzanne Romaine (ed.), Language in Australia, 118–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2013. A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frachtenberg, Leo J. 1922. Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua). In Frans Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages. P. 2, 431–629. Oosterhout, NB: Anthropological publications.Google Scholar
Gaby, Alice R. 2006. A grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Gaby, Alice E. 2010. From discourse to syntax and back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology. Lingua 1201. 1677–1692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry, Timur Maisak & Solmaz Merdanova. 2008. Non-canonical agent marking in Agul. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 173–198. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Georgi, Doreen. 2012. A uniform analysis of global and local argument encoding patterns. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII, 137–161.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 21. 167–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Ian. 1989. Marrithiyel, a language of the Daly River region of Australia’s Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Grjunberg, Aleksandr L. 1972. Mundžanskij jazyk. Teksty. Slovarʹ. Grammatičeskij očerk [The Munji language. Texts. Vocabulary. Grammatical sketch]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
1980. Jazyk kati [The Kati language]. Moscow: Vostočnaja literatura.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guirardello, Raquel. 1999. A reference grammar of Trumai. Houston, TX: Rice University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 117–176. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Handschuh, Corinna. 2014. A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, David J. 2003. Kathmandu Newar. In Randy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 371–384. Richmond: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Harms, Phillip L. 1994. Epena Pedee syntax. Dallas, Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax. A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985. Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. San Diego etc.: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Mingrelian. In Alice C. Harris (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 1. The Kartvelian languages, 313–394. Delmar, New York: Caravan.Google Scholar
2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 54–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Mark. 1986. Ngoni Waray Amungal-Yang: the Waray language from Adelaide River. Canberra: Australian National University PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33.Google Scholar
. 2015. Descriptive scales versus comparative scales. In Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspectives, 45–58. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1979. Guugu Yimidhir. Sketch grammar. In R. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), Handbook of Australian languages, Vol. 11, 26–180. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hays, Darrell & Hays, Kerttu. 2002. Odoodee grammar essentials. Ms., Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise A. 1994. A grammar of the Arabana-Wangkangurru language, Lake Eyre Basin, South Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee A. & Rusudan Gagua. 1994. Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In Rieks Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4. North East Caucasian languages. Part 2, 147–212. Delmar: Caravan.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter E. & Omkar N. Koul. 2004. Case as agreement. Non-nominative subjects in Eastern Shina, non-dative objects in Kashmiri and Poguli, and labile subjects in Kashmiri and Gujarati intransitive inceptives. In Peri Bashkararao & Karamuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects. Vol. 11, 213–225. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Pavia: Università degli studi di Pavia tesi di dottorato.Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver A. 2005. Case-asymmetry. A world-wide typological study on lexeme-class-dependent deviations in morphological case inventories. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Jansen, Joana W. 2010. A grammar of Yakima Ichishkíin / Sahaptin. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Jones, Linda K. 1986. The question of ergativity in Yawa, a Papuan language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 61. 37–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura & Coppe van Urk. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity. Agreement asymmetries in Neo-Aramaic. Natural Language and Lingustic Theory 331. 659–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keine, Stefan & Gereon Müller. 2015. Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov, Marc Richards (eds.), Scales and hierarchies. A cross-disciplinary perspective, 75–130. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. 1991. Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian languages: Comparative and typological observations. In Frans Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection, 255–274. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E. & Jakov G. Testelec (eds.). 1999. Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii. [Elements of Tsakhur in a typological perspective]. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E., Sandro V. Kodzasov & Irina A. Murav’eva. 2000. Jazyk i folʹklor aljutorcev [Alutor language and folklore]. Moscow: Nasledie.Google Scholar
Killian, Don. 2015. Topics in Uduk phonology and morphosyntax. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Remarks on the involuntary agent constructions. Word 56.31. 381–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koul, Omkar N. & Kashi Wali. 2006. Modern Kashmiri grammar. Springfield: Dunwoody Press.Google Scholar
Kumakhov, Mukhadin A. & Karina Vamling. 2009. Circassian clause structure. Malmö: Malmö University.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as a result of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Lingistica 36(3/4). 141–190.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie A. 2014. Split ergativity based on nominal type. Lingua 1481. 183–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liljegren, Henrik. 2016. A grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Logan, Tommy. 2007. Kasua grammar sketch. Ms., Summer Instutute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Louwerse, John. 1988. The morphosyntax of Una in relation to discourse structure. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Considering co-variation. In Leonid I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 329–358. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Helen de Hoop. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua special issue on Semantics of case variation 1211. 35–47.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1996. Clause structure and case in Niuean. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 14(2). 83–102.Google Scholar
Mazadoun, Martine. 2003. Tamang. In Randy LaPolla & Graham Thurgood (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 291–314. Richmond: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Lorna. 1990. A grammar of Tauya. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William. 2006. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 1161. 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Typology of ergativity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 480–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 1201. 1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2013. The marking of nominal participants under negation. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology , Leipzig, August 2013.
. 2014. Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey. In Silvia Luraghi & Toomas Huumo (eds.), Partitive cases and related categories, 63–86. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Morphy, Frances. 1983. Djapu, a Yolngu dialect. In R. M. W. Dixon & Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages, Vol. 31, 1–188. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1994. Chechen. In Rieks Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4. North East Caucasian languages. Part 2, 2–78. Delmar: Caravan.Google Scholar
. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Louise Sadler. 2004. Nominal tense in cross-linguistic perspective. Language 80(4). 776–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pacchiarotti, Sara. To appear. On the origins of the ergative marker wã in the Viceitic languages of the Chibchan family. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Lujón & Spike Gildea (eds.), Reconstructing grammar: cognates and directionality. Leiden: Brill.
Palancar, Enrique L. 2002. The Origin of Agent Markers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Patz, Elizabeth. 1991. Djabugay. In R. M. W. Dixon, Barry J. Blake (eds.), The handbook of Australian languages. Vol. 41, 243–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. A grammar of the Kuku Yalanji language of North Queensland. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Rob J. 1997. Jingulu grammar, dictionary and texts. Boston: MIT PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Phillips, Maxwell. 2013. Ergative case attrition in Central Indo-Aryan. NP-splits and the referential hierarchy. Studies in Language 37(1). 196–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piper, Nick. 1989. A sketch grammar of Meryam Mir. Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1986. Paradigm size, morphological typology, and universal economy. Folia Linguistica 201. 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quesada, J. Diego. 1999. Ergativity in Chibchan. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52(1). 22–51.Google Scholar
Quick, Philip A. 2001. Applicatives and double objects in Pendau. NUSA 491. 95–118.Google Scholar
Round, Erich & Lesley Stirling. 2015. Universals of split argument coding and morphological neutralization: Why Kala Lagaw Ya is not as bizarre as we thought. Australian Journal of Linguistics 35(3). 251–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1991. On the origins of the Nez Perce ergative NP suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics 57(1). 24–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian. International Journal of American Linguistics 63(1). 113–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sands, Anna Kristina. 1996. The ergative in Proto-Australian. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ruth Laila & Razwal Kohistani. 2008. A grammar of the Shina language of Indus Kohistan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. Differential argument marking: an introduction. In Ilja Seržant, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Kelsey Mann (eds.), The diachronic typology of differential argument marking. In preparation.Google Scholar
Silva, Maria Amélia Reis. 2001. Pronomes, ordem e ergatividade em Mebengokre (Kayapó). Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas MA thesis.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sitimova, Sara S. 2004. Osobennosti bžedugskogo dialekta adygejskogo jazyka [The features of the Bzhedug dialect of Adyghe]. Majkop: Adygeyan State University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Skorik, Petr Ja. 1961. Grammatika čukotskogo jazyka. I. Fonetika i morfologija imennyx častej reči. [A grammar of Chukchi. I. Phonology and nominal morphology.] Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case: implications for morphosyntax. In Leonid I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 3–22. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In Andrew Spencer & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 185–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stirtz, Timothy M. 2014. Ergative, antipassive and other verb derivational morphemes in Gaahmg. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 35(2). 443–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2015. Inflection classes. In Matthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 113–140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Svärd, Erik. 2013. Selected topics in the grammar of Nalca. Stockholm: Stockholm University BA thesis.Google Scholar
Tegey, Habibullah & Barbara Robson. 1996. A reference grammar of Pashto. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Testelec, Jakov G. (ed.). 2009. Aspekty polisintetizma: Očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka [Aspects of polysynthesis: Studies in Adyghe grammar]. Moscow: RSUH.Google Scholar
Todd, Terry Lynn. 2008. A grammar of Dimili also known as Zaza. Stockholm: Iremet Förlag.Google Scholar
Toland, Norma R. & Donald F. Toland. 1991. Reference grammar of the Karo/Rawa language. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2011. A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Synoptic grammar of the Bumthang language. A language of Central Bhutan highlands. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 61. 1–77.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2013. Ergativity splits and DSM in Cabécar (Chibcha). Presentation from the 10th Biennial Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology , Leipzig, August 2013.
Vogt, Hans. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Wier, Thomas. 2011. Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Melanie P. 1991. Djambarrpuyngu. A Yolngu variety of Northern Australia. Vol. 11. Sydney: University of Sydney PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Williams, Cindy S. 1993. A grammar sketch of Dəməna. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota MA thesis.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zekox, Učužuk S. 1969. Sistema sklonenija v adygejskom jazyke [The system of declension in Adyghe] Majkop: Krasnodarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Žukova, Alevtina N. 1972. Grammatika korjakskogo jazyka. Fonetika. Morfologija. [A grammar of Koryak. Phonology. Morphology]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Cheng, Yi-Yang
2023. Tense-aspect conditioned agent marking in Kanakanavu, an Austronesian language of Taiwan. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Nordlinger, Rachel & Evan Kidd
2023. Uncovering ergative use in Murrinhpatha: Evidence from experimental data. Australian Journal of Linguistics 43:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin
2019. Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema :4, 2019 ► pp. 108 ff. DOI logo
Arkadiev, Peter
2017. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov, Marc Richards (eds.). Scales and Hierarchies. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective . Studies in Language 41:3 ► pp. 791 ff. DOI logo
Arkadiev, Peter
2021.  Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony. (Typological Studies in Language 121.) Amsterdam. Linguistic Typology 25:3 ► pp. 631 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.