Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T22:55:54.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Assignment is Local: On the Relation Between Grammatical Gender and Inalienable Possession

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Luke James Adamson
Luke James Adamson*
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
*
Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Pariser Str. 1, 10719, Berlin, Germany, [adamson@leibniz-zas.de]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The grammatical gender of a noun can be sensitive to a number of different factors, including the noun's lexical semantics, nominalizing morphology, or arbitrary requirements imposed by particular roots (e.g. Corbett 1991, Kramer 2020), though the limits on possible factors are not currently understood, with some work proposing that a noun's gender can even be valued ‘at a distance’ via agreement with other nominals. The current study explores the understudied phenomenon of gender-possession interactions (Evans 1994), investigating whether being possessed, or being possessable, can have an impact on which gender a noun is assigned. Evidence is provided from four unrelated languages supporting the existence of such interactions. Strikingly, however, these interactions are restricted to inalienable possession; no such interactions have been identified for alienable possession. I propose that this falls out from a general gender locality hypothesis (GLH), which restricts the domain of gender assignment within a phrase nP. The GLH captures the gender asymmetry between ‘local’, inalienable possessors introduced within nP and ‘nonlocal’, alienable possessors introduced outside of nP, for example, in a phrase PossP (Alexiadou 2003, Myler 2016). The GLH also makes further predictions for other features with respect to what may or may not factor into gender assignment, severely restricting or outright prohibiting gender-assignment effects from number, definiteness, and case. Broadly, the work expands our understanding of which types of elements can be relevant to gender assignment and sheds light on underexplored gender-, possession-, and agreement-related phenomena.

Keywords

grammatical gendergender assignmentpossessionalienabilitymorphologysyntax

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , June 2024, pp. 218 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © 2024 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Elena Anagnostopoulou, Jonathan Bobaljik, Christos Christopoulous, Kajsa Djärv, Michael Everdell, Zuzanna Fuchs, Ruth Kramer, Naomi Lee, Neil Myler, Phoevos Panagiotidis, and Omer Preminger, as well as audiences at MIT, WCCFL 39, WCCFL 41, Rutgers, and Leibniz-ZAS for discussion of and feedback on this work. The present work greatly expands on Adamson 2023 and is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation SBE Postdoctoral Research Fellowship under Grant No. 1911708.

References

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/14638.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008a. Lexical plurals: A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008b. Roots and lexicality in distributed morphology. Dublin: University College Dublin, and Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, ms. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10197/4148.Google Scholar
Adamson, Luke James. 2019. Derivational trapping and the morphosyntax of inflectionlessness. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Adamson, Luke James. 2023. Gender assignment is local: On assignment and inalienable possessors. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 39, to appear.Google Scholar
Adamson, Luke James. 2024a. Root suppletion in Swedish as contextual allomorphy. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 27:4. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-023-09148-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, Luke James. 2024b. Split coordination with adjectives in Italian: An approach with multidominance and semantic agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, Luke James, and Šereikaitė, Milena, 2019. Representing gender and defaults: Evidence from Lithuanian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):121. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.860.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. From NP to DP, vol. 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases, ed. by Coene, Martine and D'hulst, Yves, 167–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena; and Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Müller, Gereon. 2008. Class features as probes. Inflectional identity, ed. by Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew, 101–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199219254.003.0005.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 737–78. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025533719905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armoskaite, Solveiga. 2014. Derivation by gender in Lithuanian. Crosslinguistic investigation of nominalization patterns, ed. by Paul, Ileana, 169–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bateman, Nicoleta, and Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Romanian as a two-gender language. Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, ed. by Gerdts, Donna B., Moore, John C., and Polinsky, Maria, 41–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. Phi-theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces, ed. by Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0010.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Zocca, Cynthia Levart. 2011. Gender markedness: The anatomy of a counter-example. Morphology 21. 141–66. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-010-9156-3.10.1007/s11525-010-9156-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13534.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clem, Emily. 2022. Cyclic expansion in Agree: Maximal projections as probes. Linguistic Inquiry 54. 39–78. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00432.10.1162/ling_a_00432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Engdahl, Elisabet. 2016. Quasi-definites in Swedish: Elative superlatives and emphatic assertion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34. 1181–1243. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9327-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139166119.10.1017/CBO9781139166119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dali, Myriam. 2020. Gender and number in Tunisian Arabic: A case of contextual allosemy. Ottawa: University of Ottawa dissertation. DOI: 10.20381/ruor-24907.Google Scholar
Dali, Myriam, and Mathieu, Eric. 2021. A theory of distributed number. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. External possession and possessor raising. The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk. London: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047.Google Scholar
Dienst, Stefan. 2014. A grammar of Kulina. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110341911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2000. Categories of the noun phrase in Jarawara. Journal of Linguistics 36. 487–510. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700008367.10.1017/S0022226700008367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199270675.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Giurgea, Ion. 2013. A reference grammar of Romanian, vol. 1: The noun phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Schapper, Antoinette. 2008. Whence the Austronesian indirect possession construction? Oceanic Linguistics 47. 316–27. DOI: 10.1353/ol.0.0017.10.1353/ol.0.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: https://wals.info/.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 355–92. DOI: 10.1162/0024389041402634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 1–53. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–95. DOI: 10.1162/002438901753373005.10.1162/002438901753373005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2012. Definiteness, gender, and hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian dialects. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24. 287–324. DOI: 10.1017/S1470542712000098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1994. The problem of body parts and noun class membership in Australian languages. University of Melbourne Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 1–8.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1998. Iwaidja mutation and its origins. Case, typology, and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, ed. by Siewierska, Anna and Song, Jae Jung, 115–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30. 425–49.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2011. Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 561–94. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harđarson, Gísli Rúnararson. 2017. Cycling through grammar: On compounds, noun phrases and domains. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation. Online: https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/dissertations/1570/.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511581908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.tb00870.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iordăchioaia, Gianina. 2013. The determiner restriction in Romance and Germanic nominalizations. Paper presented at the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages.Google Scholar
Iordăchioaia, Gianina, and Soare, Elena. 2008. Two kinds of event plurals: Evidence from Romanian nominalizations. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7. 193–216. Online: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/iordachioaia-soare-eiss7.pdf.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal phrases from a Scandinavian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keach, Camillia, and Rochemont, Michael. 1992. On the syntax of possessor raising in Swahili. Studies in African Linguistics 23. 81–105. DOI: 10.32473/sal.v23i1.107418.10.32473/sal.v23i1.107418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, Jean F. 1971a. Complexities of Yanyula nouns: Inter-relationship of linguistics and anthropology. Pacific Linguistics A 27. 15–66. Online: http://sealang.net/archives/pl/pdf/PL-A27.15.pdf.Google Scholar
Kirton, Jean F. 1971b. Yanyula noun modifiers. Pacific Linguistics A 27. 1–14. Online: http://sealang.net/archives/pl/pdf/PL-A27.1.pdf.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2009. Definite markers, phi features, and agreement: A morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32. 593–634. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0.10.1007/s11049-014-9233-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679935.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2016a. The location of gender features in the syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 661–77. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12226.10.1111/lnc3.12226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2016b. A split analysis of plurality: Number in Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 47. 527–59. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00220.10.1162/LING_a_00220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2020. Grammatical gender: A close look at gender assignment across languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 6. 45–66. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012450.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučerová, Ivona. 2018. φ-features at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from nominal inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 813–45. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučerová, Ivona, Chapman, Cassandra; and Moulton, Keir. 2020. How to value gender: Lexicon, Agree, and feature transmission under ellipsis. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 38. 253–63. Online: https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/38/abstract3570.html.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2002. Gender ‘polarity’: Theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. Many morphologies, ed. by Boucher, Paul and Plénat, Marc, 109–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Online: http://www.cascadilla.com/manym/lecarme109-111.pdf.Google Scholar
Liu, Haiyong. 2019. Why plurality of the possessor matters in Mandarin Chinese inalienable possession. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 40. 141–66. DOI: 10.2478/scl-2019-0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2018. Gender from Latin to Romance: History, geography, typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199656547.001.0001.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2008. On little n, √, and types of nouns. Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, ed. by Hartmann, Jutta, Hegedűs, Veronika, and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 105–44. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, and Robustelli, Cecilia. 2013. A reference grammar of Modern Italian. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 2020. The morphosyntactic structure of number in Italian and Albanian: High and low plurals. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 19. 127–57. DOI: 10.5565/rev/catjl.319.10.5565/rev/catjl.319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Savoia, Leonardo. 2017. Gender, number and inflectional class in Romance: Feminine/plural -a. Language use and linguistic structure, ed. by Emonds, Joseph and Janebova, Marketa, 263–82. Olomouc: Palacký University Olomouc.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, ed. by Marantz, Alec and Matushansky, Ora, 95–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9701.003.0008.10.7551/mitpress/9701.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Why Rose is the Rose: On the use of definite articles in proper names. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6. 285–308. Online: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/matushansky-eiss6.pdf.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2008. On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 573–627. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1.10.1007/s10988-008-9050-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2018. *ABA in stem-allomorphy and the emptiness of the nominative. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1):8. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.373.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/9650.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1982. Mangarayi. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2012. Possession in Nanti. Possession and ownership, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W., 149–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660223.003.0006.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2014. Type shifts of nouns under determination in Teop, an Oceanic language of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. Meaning and grammar of nouns and verbs, ed. by Gerland, Doris, Horn, Christian, Latrouite, Anja, and Ormann, Albert, 49–75. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2019. A multifunctional Teop-English dictionary. Dictionaria 4. 1–6488. Online: https://dictionaria.clld.org/contributions/teop.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike, and Spriggs, Ruth. 2000. Gender in Teop (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Gender in grammar and cognition, part 1: Approaches to gender, ed. by Unterbeck, Barbara, Rissanen, Matti, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Saari, Mirja, 321–50. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110802603.321.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike, and Thiesen, Yvonne. 2007. The Teop sketch grammar. Online: https://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/media/1147/teop_sketch_grammar_may07.pdf.Google Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2018. Attributive possession and the contributions of roots. Paper presented at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) 40, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, Bárány, András; and Bond, Oliver. 2019. Towards a typology of prominent internal possessors. Prominent internal possessors, ed. by Bárány, András, Bond, Oliver, and Nikolaeva, Irina, 1–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198812142.003.0001.Google Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2014. A theory of nominal concord. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80q2t91n.Google Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2017a. Description and analyses of nominal concord (part I). Language and Linguistics Compass 11:e12266. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12266.10.1111/lnc3.12266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Mark. 2017b. Description and analyses of nominal concord (part II). Language and Linguistics Compass 11:e12267. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12267.10.1111/lnc3.12267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, Bruno. 2017. The Coastal Marind language. Jurong West: Nanyang Technological University dissertation. DOI: 10.32657/10356/73235.Google Scholar
Olsson, Bruno. 2021. A grammar of Coastal Marind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110747065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, C. R. 1974. The Tiwi language. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, ed. by Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy K., 262–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil ‘case stacking’ and the timing of case assignment. Syntax 16. 42–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00169.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00169.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Syntax and semantics 25), ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 37–62. DOI: 10.1163/9789004373198_004.10.1163/9789004373198_004.10.1163/9789004373198_004.10.1163/9789004373198_004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio. 1986. Generative morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783112328040.10.1515/9783110877328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2018. Morphosyntax of gender in Russian sex-differentiable nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 26. 307–35. DOI: 10.1353/jsl.2018.0010.10.1353/jsl.2018.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steripolo, Olga, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2010. Distributed gender hypothesis. Formal studies in Slavic linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, ed. by Zybatow, Gerhild, Dudchuk, Philip, Minor, Serge, and Pshehotskaya, Ekaterina, 155–72. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada, and Spathas, Giorgos. 2020. Gender and interpretation in Greek: Comments on Merchant (2014). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1):129. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1173.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2009. Constraining gender assignment rules. Language Sciences 31. 14–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.09.003.10.1016/j.langsci.2007.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Alan. 2016. Jarawara-English dictionary. Anápolis: SIL International. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/72031.Google Scholar
Vogel, Alan. 2022. A typology of finite subordinate clauses in Jarawara. (Cadernos de Etnolingüística monograph 6.) Online: http://www.etnolinguistica.org/mono:6.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9.10.1007/978-3-319-09138-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatsushiro, Kazuko, and Sauerland, Uli. 2006. [feminine] in a high position. Snippets 13. 11–12. Online: https://www.ledonline.it/snippets/allegati/snippets13004.pdf.Google Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me. 1997. The argument structure of relational nouns and inalienable possessor constructions in Korean. Language Research 33. 231–64. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/10371/92297.Google Scholar