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. 131184
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3): 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2011Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of LinguisticTypology, Jae Jun Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1917Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis [University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 3]. Urbana IL: UIUC.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1985Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objectmarkierung in neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brainard, Sherri
1994Voice and Ergativity in Karao. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina
2011Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Guzman, Videa P
1988Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 323–345. Athens OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen &de Swart, Peter
2008Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1997The Theory of Functional Grammar, I: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Foley, William
1998Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Workshop on voice and grammatical relations in Austronesian languages. LFG98 Conference. Brisbane.
Gerdts, Donna B.
1988Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis. In Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, Richard McGinn (ed.), 295–321. Athens OH: Center for Southeast Asia Studies, Ohio University.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio
Iemmolo, Giorgio & Klumpp, Gerson
2014Introduction. Linguistics 52(2): 271–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, John
1934Visayan-English Dictionary. ( Kapulúñgan Binisayá-Ininglís ). [URL]
Kayne, Richard S.
1969The Transformational Cycle in French Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1975French Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I.
1994Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47(2): 78–98.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard
1977Noun Phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
1993Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan M.
1976Notes on quantifier-postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 7(4): 708–718.Google Scholar
McKaughan, Howard P.
1958The Inflection and Syntax of Maranao Verbs. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
1962Overt relation markers in Maranao. Language 38(1): 47–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973Subject versus topic. In Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez, Andrew B. Gonzalez (ed.), 206–213. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
1994The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In Voice: Its Form and Function [Typological Studies in Language 27], Barbara Fox & Paul Hopper (eds), 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motus, Cecile
1971aHiligaynon Dictionary. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
1971bHiligaynon Lessons. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E.
Postal, Paul M.
1974On Raising. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, Macario B.
1968A Study of the Behaviour of Hiligaynon Verb Roots with Particular Reference to the Actor and Goal Focus Affixes. Iloilo City: University Research Center, Central Philippines University.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Otanes, Fe T.
1972A Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius
2014A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley, Pawley, Andrew & Reid, Lawrence
1982The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers , Amran Halim, Lois Carrington & Stephen Wurm (eds), 145–170. Canberra: ANU.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Elmer P.
1971Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
1975A Description of Hiligaynon Syntax. Norman IL: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka & Cheryl Lim
2023. Bikol clefts and topics and the Austronesian extraction restriction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3  pp. 911 ff. DOI logo
Mithun, Marianne

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.