Cover not available
Part of
Argument Selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations
Edited by Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Balthasar Bickel
[Typological Studies in Language 123] 2019
► pp. 1–38

Argument selectors

A new perspective on grammatical relations. An introduction

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
This article opens a volume of detailed descriptions of grammatical relations in thirteen languages. It begins by outlining new developments in the research on grammatical relations in the recent years. It then introduces the framework for studying and describing grammatical relations developed in Bickel (2010b) and Witzlack-Makarevich (2011). This framework served as a guideline to the contributors of the present volume in preparing individual accounts. I first present the various properties of arguments, which are understood as compound categories made up of both generalized semantic roles S, A, P, T, and G, as well as of their lexical and referential specifications. I then proceed to various conditions on grammatical relations and, finally, introduce the concept of argument selectors and illustrate their common types with examples from the languages of the present volume, as well as from other languages.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical relations: A brief history of research
  • 3.Arguments
    • 3.1Arguments vs. adjuncts
    • 3.2Generalized semantic roles
    • 3.3Predicate classes
    • 3.4Referential specifications of arguments
  • 4.Clause-level conditions
  • 5.Argument selectors
    • 5.1Argument marking
    • 5.2Phrase structure
    • 5.3Biclausal argument selectors
      • 5.3.1Argument selectors with control and raising verbs
      • 5.3.2Argument selectors with other types of clause combining
      • 5.3.3Relativization site as an argument selector
    • 5.4Diathesis alternation
    • 5.5Other argument selectors
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Appendix: Questionnaire
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.123.01wit
References (143)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 1–23. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clause. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, 2nd revised edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 206-236. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Artiagoitia, Xabier. 2003. Complementation. In A Grammar of Basque, José Ignacio Hualde & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), 634–710. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2005. Case and control constructions in German, Faroese and Icelandic. Or how to evaluate marginally-acceptable data? Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 75: 1–36.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. Hidden syntax in Belhare. In Himalayan Linguistics: Past and Present, Anju Saxena (ed.), 141–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Clause-hierarchy and Clause-linking: The Syntax and Pragmatics Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 51–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Iemmolo, Giorgio, Zakharko, Taras & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2013. Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169–240. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Case marking and alignment. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 304–321. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Scales, Marc Richards & Andrej Malchukov (eds),1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Choudhary, Kamal K., Schlesewsky, Matthias & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2015. The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PloS One 10(8). e0132819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Zakharko, Taras. 2015. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In Scales and Hierarchies: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective, Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov & Marc Richards (eds),7–43. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Zakharko, Taras & Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2015. Exploring diachronic universals of agreement: Alignment patterns and zero marking across person categories. In Agreement from a Diachronic Perspective, Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds), 29–52. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yādava, Yogendra P. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5): 343–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2014. Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38(3): 485–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birchall, Joshua. 2014. Argument Marking Patterns in South American Languages. PhD dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1982. Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65 . Geburtstag , Otto Winkelmann & Maria Braisch (eds), 579–599. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues de l’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 343–434.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida & Wechsler, Stephen. 2015. Lexical-functional Syntax, 2nd edn. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadwell, Georg Aaron. 2006. A Choctaw Reference Grammar. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred Philipp Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1985. Reflections on subject and object control. Journal of Semantics 4(1): 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Coreference and conjunction reduction in grammar and discourse. In Explaining Language Universals, John A. Hawkins (ed.),186–208. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, 2nd edn. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Argument structure. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 905–914. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013a. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
. 2013b. Alignment of case marking of pronouns. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin, Malchukov, Andrej & Wichmann, Søren. 2015. Introduction. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia , Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 3–26. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. Event structure in argument linking. In The Projection of Arguments, Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 1–43. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter (eds). 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1): 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Complementation: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds),1–48. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Søren (eds). 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian [London Oriental and African Language Library 14]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical Relations. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2008. The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2013. A Grammar of Hinuq. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, Shin. 2007. On the control/raising ambiguity with aspectual verbs: A structural account. In Studies in Complement Control [ZAS papers in Linguistics 47], Barbara Stiebels (ed.), 159–195. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics 54(4): 483–529.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1997. Grammatical relations: An introduction. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], Talmy Givón (ed.), 1–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Iren, Haspelmath, Martin & Taylor, Bradley (eds). 2013. Valency Patterns. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1): 25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3): 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
. 2014. Arguments and adjuncts as language-particular syntactic categories and as comparative concepts. Linguistic Discovery 12(2): 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Hartmann, Iren. 2015. Comparing verbal valency across languages. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia , Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 41–72. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1991. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben, 8th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (eds), 110–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Towards a Typological Study of Differential Object Marking and Differential Object Indexation. PhD dissertation, University of Pavia.
. 2013. Symmetric and asymmetric alternations in direct object encoding. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 66: 378–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 2001. The passive voice. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 899–916. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 305–334. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. Relative clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 206–236. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55(2): 333–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 325-361. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khrakovsky, Viktor. 1979. Diathesis. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29(3–4): 289–309.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2010. A Grammar of Teiwa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Christa. 2008. Case in Africa. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
König, Christa & Heine, Bernd. 2010. Are there ditransitive verbs in ǃXun? In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds), 45–81. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63: 759–813.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1986. On the typology of relative clauses. Linguistics 24(4): 663–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1976. Subject and Topic. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liljegren, Henrik. 2016. A Grammar of Palula. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Comrie, Bernard (eds). 2015. Valency Classes in the World’s Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard. 2010a. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov, Haspelmath & Comrie (eds), 1–35.
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds). 2010b. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry. 1981. Language Typology: Cross-linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1993. The inflectional category of voice: Towards a more rigorous definition. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 1-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Calculus of possibilities as a technique in linguistic typology. In Catching Language, Felix Kofi Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Xolodovič, Alexandr. 1970. K teorii grammaticheskogo zaloga. Narody Azii i Afriki 4: 111–124.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1985. Split intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some Approaches to Theory from the Field, Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds), 324–362. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45(3–4): 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mous, Maarten & Mreta, Abel. 2004. The comitative/conjunctive preposition na in Chathu (Pare), a Bantu language of Tanzania. South African Journal of African Languages 24(4): 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Tolskaya, Maria. 2001. A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael Leon. 1981. Barai Clause Junctures. Toward a Functional Theory of Interclausal Relations. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.
Overall, Simon. 2007. A Grammar of Aguaruna. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Aguaruna. In The Semantics of Clause Linking, Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 167–192. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1968. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
. 1970. The two verbs begin . In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds),107–119. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2006. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.). 1979. Ergativity. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2005. Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 438–441. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. Antipassive constructions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds), Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
. 2017. Antipassive. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis (eds), 308–331. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Polome, Edgar. 1967. Swahili Language Handbook. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Mismatches in semantic role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds), 53–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja. 2014. Symmetrical Voice and Linking in Western Austronesian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2015. When “you” and “I” mess around with the hierarchy: A comparative study of Tupi-Guarani hierarchical indexing systems. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 10(2): 347–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. A hierarchical indexation system: The example of Emerillon (Teko). In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience L. Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 63–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A Grammar of Yakkha. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert, Paudyal, Netra P. & Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Flexible valency in Chintang. In Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1, Andrej L. Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds), 669–7007. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2018. Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2004. Voice. In Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 2, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. On nominal and verbal person marking. Linguistic Typology 2: 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Person. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Verbal person marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. < [URL]Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert W. M. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Høskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Mark L. O. 2008. A Grammar of Eton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gijn, Rik & Jeremy Hammond (eds). 2016. Switch Reference 2.0. [Typological Studies in Language 114]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1980. On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50: 303–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3): 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983. Pragmatics, ergativity and grammatical relations. Journal of Pragmatics 7(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Exploring the Syntax-semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and function. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological Variations in Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Seržant, Ilja A. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando & Bickel, Balthasar. 2016. Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement. Linguistics 54(3): 531–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xolodovič, Alexandr (ed.). 1974. Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij: Diatezy i zalogi. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2007. From the typology of inversion to the typology of alignment. In New Challenges in Typology: Broadening the Horizons and Redefining the Foundations, Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 200–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Natalia Gurian & Sergei Karpenko
2024. Minimal participant structure of the event and the emergence of the argument/adjunct distinction. Studies in Language 48:1 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Just, Erika
2023. Chapter 10. Differential indexing and information structure management. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Just, Erika
2024. A structural and functional comparison of differential A and P indexing. Linguistics 62:2 ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
McDonnell, Bradley
2023. Universal quantifiers, focus, and grammatical relations in Besemah. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 422 ff. DOI logo
Bril, Isabelle
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice constructions (Northern Amis). STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo
2022. Towards a typology of middle voice systems. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 489 ff. DOI logo
Just, Erika & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2022. A corpus-based analysis of P indexing in Ruuli (Bantu, JE103). South African Journal of African Languages 42:2 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
van Lier, Eva & Maria Messerschmidt
2022. Lexical restrictions on grammatical relations in voice and valency constructions. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Argument structure. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. A′ constructions. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Constructional economy and analogy. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Language Change, Variation, and Universals, DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Universals. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Janic, Katarzyna & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2021. Chapter 1. The multifaceted nature of the antipassive construction. In Antipassive [Typological Studies in Language, 130], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2020. Linguistic system and sociolinguistic environment as competing factors in linguistic variation: A typological approach. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6:2 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. List of Abbreviations. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. xv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Preface. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Copyright Page. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.