Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp.791–799
Book review

Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov, Marc Richards (eds.). Scales and Hierarchies. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective

Reviewed by
 | Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences | Russian State University for the Humanities | Moscow State University of Education, Moscow
Published online: 25 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.08ark
References (27)
References
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
Arkadiev, Peter. 2011. The role of referential hierarchies in ergative allomorphy. Talk at the workshop Referential Hierarchies in Alignment Typology, 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea , Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September 2011. [URL]
. 2017. Multiple ergatives: From allomorphy to differential agent marking. Studies in Language 411: 717–780. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paducheva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov G. Testelets & Igor Yanovich. 2008. Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. The Stony Brook meeting (FASL 16), Andrej Antonenko (ed.), 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart, eds. 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & Andrej Malchukov. 2008. Case marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4). 565–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1992. Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the genesis of ergativity in independent clauses. PhD Diss., University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Handschuh, Corinna. 2014. A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. [URL] DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 63–99.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core. A minimalist approach. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klokeid, Terry J. 1976. 71. Lardil. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 550–584. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds.), 73–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 1181. 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marten, Lutz & Jenneke van der Wal. 2014. A typology of Bantu subject inversion. Linguistic Variation 14(2). 318–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Evan J. 1986. A grammar sketch and comparative study of Eastern Mono. PhD Diss., University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marc Richards & Malchukov, Andrej L. (eds.). 2008. Scales. (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 86). Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig. [URL]
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 19–21, 1974, Michael W. La Galy; Robert A. Fox and Anthony Bruck (eds.), 657–671. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Inflectional paradigms. Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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.