Part of
Nonverbal Predication in Amazonian Languages
Edited by Simon E. Overall, Rosa Vallejos and Spike Gildea
[Typological Studies in Language 122] 2018
► pp. 5384
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
1999The Arawak language family. In The Amazonian Languages, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 65–106. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Pederson, Eric
1992Topological Relations Picture Series. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2006Syntaxe générale: Une introduction typologique, Vol. 1: Langues et syntaxe. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
2013Existential predication in typological perspective. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split.
Danielsen, Swintha & Granadillo, Tania
2008Agreement in two Arawak languages: Baure and Kurripako. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 396–411. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2010aBasic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 1. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010bBasic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 2. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2007Clause types. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I: Clause Structure, 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 224–275. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durand, Tom
2016L’intransitivité scindée dans les langues arawak, PhD dissertation, INALCO, Paris.Google Scholar
Frachtenberg, Leo J.
1922Coos. In Handbook of America Indian Languages, Vol. II, Franz Boas (ed.). Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Haas, Florian
2011On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 124], Andrej Malchukov & Anna Siewierska (eds), 127–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1996Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Marbán, Pedro
1702Arte de la lengua Moxa, con su Vocabulario, y Cathecismo, Lima: Imprenta Real de Joseph de Contreras.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca
1985Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, Johanna Nichols & Anthony Woodbury (eds), 324–262. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
New Tribes Mission
2002Eto ’chojriicovo mue ’ma viya (The New Testament). Sanford: New Tribes Mission.Google Scholar
Olza Zubiri, Jesús, Nuni de Chapi, Conchita & Tube, Juan
2002Gramática Moja Ignaciana, Caracas: Universidad Católica Andres Bello.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas
1996Estatividad y movimiento. In Estudios lingüísticos de textos de la Amazonia peruana, Mary Ruth Wise (ed.), 221–268. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Perú.Google Scholar
1997Describing Morpho-syntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rose, Françoise
2011aMorphological and prosodic structure of the Trinitario verb. Paper presented at the Americanist Meeting: Word-formation in South American Languages, University of Leipzig, 24 June.
2011bWho is the third person ? Fluid transitivity in Mojeño Trinitario. In special issue Argument-encoding Systems in Bolivian Amazonian Languages. Antoine Guillaume & Françoise Rose (eds). International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4): 469–494.Google Scholar
2014aIrrealis and negation in Mojeño Trinitario. In Negation in Arawak Languages, Lev Michael & Tania Granadillo (eds), 216–240. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014bWhen vowel deletion blurs reduplication in Mojeño Trinitario. In Reduplication in South-American Languages, Gale Goodwin Gómez & Hein van der Voort (eds), 375–399. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015aAssociated motion in Mojeño Trinitario: Some typological considerations. Folia Linguistica 49(1): 117–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015bInnovative complexity in the pronominal paradigm of Mojeño. A result of contact? In Borrowed Morphology, Francesco Gardani, Peter Arkadiev & Nino Amiridze (eds), 241–267. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015cMojeño Trinitario. In Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol 3: Oriente, Mily Crevels & Peter Muysken (eds), 59–97. La Paz: Plural Editores.Google Scholar
2016On finitization. In Finiteness and Nominalization [Typological Studies in Language 113], Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada Fernández (eds), 347–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Luca Ciucci & Margherita Farina
2019. Two types of morphologically expressed non-verbal predication. Studies in Language 43:1  pp. 120 ff. DOI logo
Fabre, Alain
2020. A predicación nominal posesiva en la expresión de las relaciones interpersonales en las lenguas de la familia mataguayo (Gran Chaco), con énfasis especial en el nivaĉle y el maká. LIAMES: Línguas Indígenas Americanas 20  pp. e020014 ff. DOI logo
Rose, Françoise
2019. Similar but different: the functions of the Mojeño Trinitario root expressing similarity. Faits de Langues 50:1  pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Rose, Françoise
2023. Questioning the relevance of alienability in Arawak linguistics: an innovative analysis of possession in Mojeño Trinitario. Linguistics 61:6  pp. 1491 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.