No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The syntax of Sanskrit compounds
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
Abstract
Classical Sanskrit is well known for making extensive use of compounding. I argue, within a lexicalist framework, that the major rules of compounding in Sanskrit can be most appropriately characterized in syntactic, not morphological, terms. That is, Classical Sanskrit ‘compounds’ are in fact very often syntactic phrases. The syntactic analysis proposed captures the fact that compound formation is closer to a morphological process than other aspects of syntax, and so permits some acknowledgment of the gradient nature of the word-phrase divide, even within a strictly lexicalist theory.
Information
- Type
- Historical Syntax
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2015 Linguistic Society of America
References
Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 2010. The Catalan definite article as lexical sharing. Proceedings of the LFG ’10 Conference, 5–25. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/15/papers/lfg10alsina.pdf.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. Amorphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Doug, and Sadler, Louisa. 2013. Displaced dependent constructions. Proceedings of the LFG ’13 Conference, 48–68. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/18/papers/lfg13arnoldsadler.pdf.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2007. Some notes on pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Ottawa: Carleton University, ms. Online: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~cpgl0036/pdf/niuean.pdf.Google Scholar
Attia, Mohammed. 2008. A unified analysis of copula constructions in LFG. Proceedings of the LFG ’08 Conference, 89–108. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/13/papers/lfg08attia.pdf.Google Scholar
Baker, Brett, and Nordlinger, Rachel. 2008. Noun-adjective compounds in Gunwinyguan languages. Proceedings of the LFG ’08 Conference, 109–28. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/13/papers/lfg08bakernordlinger.pdf.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beesley, Kenneth r., and Karttunen, Lauri. 2003. Finite-state morphology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg I. 2014. Осетинский как язык с двухпадежной системой: Групповая флексия и другие парадоксы падежного маркирования. Вопросы Языкознания 6. 74–108.Google Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg I. 2015. Systematic mismatches: Coordination and subordination at three levels of grammar. Journal of Linguistics 51. 2. 267–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta, and Scalise, Sergio. 1999. Compounding: Morphology and/or syntax? Boundaries of morphology and syntax, ed. by Mereu, Lunella, 39–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta, and Scalise, Sergio. 2005. Classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio 2. 319–32.Google Scholar
Böer, Katja, Kotowski, Sven; and Härtl, Holden. 2011. Nominal composition and the demarcation between morphology and syntax: Grammatical, variational, and cognitive factors. Proceedings of Anglistentag 2011, Freiburg, ed. by Fludernik, Monika and Kohlmann, Benjamin, 63–74. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina, Butt, Miriam, Kaplan, Ronald M., King, Tracy Holloway; and Maxwell, John T. III. 2010. Second position and the prosody-syntax interface. Proceedings of the LFG ’10 Conference, 106–26. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/15/papers/lfg10boegeletal.pdf.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. Morphology and its demarcations, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang U., Rainer, Franz, Kastovsky, Dieter, and Pfeiffer, Oskar, 109–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2009. Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. Universals of language today, ed. by Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. Proceedings of the LFG ’97 Conference. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/LFG2-1997/lfg97bresnan.pdf.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 2. 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mugane, John. 2006. Agentive nominalizations in Gĩkũyũ and the theory of mixed categories. Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, ed. by Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary, and King, Tracy Holloway, 201–34. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2007. Lexical sharing and non-projecting words: The syntax of Zapotec adjectives. Proceedings of the LFG ’07 Conference, 87–106. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/papers/lfg07broadwell.pdf.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2008. Turkish suspended affixation is lexical sharing. Proceedings of the LFG ’08 Conference, 198–213. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/13/papers/lfg08broadwell.pdf.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1889. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Band 2.1: Wortbildungslehre (Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre). Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, King, Tracy Holloway, Niño, María-Eugenia; and Segond, Frédérique. 1999. A grammar writer s cookbook. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, and Janda, Richard. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23. 2-3.93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara, and Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2013. Towards a new typology of co-ordinated wh-questions. Journal of Linguistics 49. 1. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James. 2002. Composition in Indo-European languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 100. 2. 163–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Michael. 1992. Sanskrit: An introduction to the classical language. 2nd edn. London: Teach Yourself Books.Google Scholar
Crouch, Dick, Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., King, Tracy Holloway, Maxwell, John T. III; and Newman, Paula. 2011. XLE documentation. Palo Alto: Palo Alto Research Center. Online: http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/doc/xle_toc.html.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Dyvik, Helge; and King, Tracy Holloway. 2004. Copular complements: Closed or open? Proceedings of the LFG ’04 Conference, 188–98. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/9/lfg04ddk.pdf.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2013. Nested and crossed dependencies and the existence of traces. From quirky case to representing space: Papers in honor of Annie Zaenen, ed. by King, Tracy Holloway and Paiva, Valeria de, 139–51. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Mycock, Louise. 2011. The prosody-semantics interface. Proceedings of the LFG ’11 Conference, 173–93. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/16/papers/lfg11dalrymplemycock.pdf.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1878. Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem Çatapathabrāhmaṇa. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dione, Cheikh Bamba. 2012. An LFG approach to Wolof cleft constructions. Proceedings of the LFG ’12 Conference, 157–76. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/17/papers/lfg12dione.pdf.Google Scholar
Duncan, Lachlan. 2007. Analytic noun incorporation in Chuj and K'ichee’ Mayan. Proceedings of the LFG ’07 Conference, 163–83. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/papers/lfg07duncan.pdf.Google Scholar
Dunkel, George E. 1999. On the origins of nominal composition in Indo-European. Compositiones indogermanicae (in memoriam Jochem Schindler), ed. by Eichner, Heiner and Luschützky, Hans Christian, 47–68. Praha: Enigma.Google Scholar
Erschler, David. 2012. Suspended affixation and the structure of syntax-morphology interface. Studia Linguistica Hungarica 59. 153–75.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2003. The English auxiliary system revisited. Proceedings of the LFG ’03 Conference, 184–204. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/8/lfg03falk.pdf.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2004. The Hebrew present-tense copula as a mixed category. Proceedings of the LFG ’04 Conference, 226–46. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/9/lfg04falk.pdf.Google Scholar
Frank, Annette, and Zaenen, Annie. 2002. Tense in LFG: Syntax and morpology. How we say when it happens: Contributions to the theory of temporal reference in natural language, ed. by Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe, 17–52. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2000. Explaining grammaticalization (the standard way). Linguistics 38. 4. 781-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8. 1. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2005. Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon-syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics 41. 571–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2009. The English compound stress myth. Word Structure 2. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 1991. Sanskrit word formation and context free rules. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 15–45.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 1994. Bhartrhari's solution to the problem of asamartha compounds. Bhartrhari, philosopher and grammarian: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bhartrhari (University of Poona, January 6-8, 1992), ed. by Bhate, Saroja and Bronkhorst, Johannes, 117–33. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 1995. The autonomy of word formation: Evidence from Classical Sanskrit. Indian Linguistics 56. 15–52.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 2007. Exocentric (bahuvrīhi) compounds in Classical Sanskrit. Proceedings of the First International Sanskrit Computational Linguistics Symposium, Paris, October 29-31, 2007, ed. by Huet, Gérard and Kulkarni, Amba, 1–12. Rocquen-court: Inria. Online: http://sanskrit.inria.fr/Symposium/Proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S. 2009. Tagging Classical Sanskrit compounds. Sanskrit computational linguistics, ed. by Huet, Gérard, Kulkarni, Amba, and Scharf, Peter, 98–105. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S., and Shaer, Benjamin. 2005. Classical Sanskrit, ‘wild trees’, and the properties of free word order languages. Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages, ed. by Kiss, Katalin É., 457–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1952. Remarques sur la place du verbe dans la phrase active et moyenne en langue sanscrite. Utrecht: Oosthoek.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in distributed morphology. In Lieber & Štekauer 2009b, 129–44.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, ed. by Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45. 1. 31–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. Xsyntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, S. D. (ed.) 1974. Patañjali's Vyākarana-mahābhāsya: Bahuvrihidvandvāhnika (P. 2.2.23—2.2.38). Introduction by S. D. Joshi. Text, translation, and notes by Roodbergen, J. A. F.. Poona: University of Poona.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald m., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald m., and Kay, Martin. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20. 3. 331–78.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald m., and Maxwell, John T. III. 1996. LFG grammar writer's workbench. Technical report. Palo Alto: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, In-Seok, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2010. Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: The bumpy ride from phrase to word. Language 86. 2. 302–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas. 1999. Towards a simple architecture for the structure-function mapping. Proceedings of the LFG ’99 Conference. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/LFG4-1999/lfg99kuhn.pdf.Google Scholar
Kumar, Anil, Sheebasudheer, V.; and Kulkarni, Amba. 2009. Sanskrit compound paraphrase generator. Proceedings of ICON-2009: 7th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, ed. by Sharma, Dipti Misra, Varma, Vasudeva, and Sangal, Rajeev, 229–38. Hyderabad: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Laczkó, Tibor. 2012. On the (un)bearable lightness of being an LFG style copula in Hungarian. Proceedings of the LFG ’12 Conference, 341–61. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/17/papers/lfg12laczko.pdf.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1980. The theory of grammatical agreement. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Lee, Leslie, and Ackerman, Farrell. 2011. Mandarin resultative compounds: A family of lexical constructions. Proceedings of the LFG’11 Conference, 320–38. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/16/papers/lfg11leeackerman.pdf.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle, and Štekauer, Pavol. 2009a. Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In Lieber & Štekauer 2009b, 3–18.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle, and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) 2009b. The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2011. Rgvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement’. Proceedings of the LFG ’11 Conference, 360–80. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/16/papers/lfg11lowe.pdf.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2013. (De)selecting arguments for transitive and predicated nominals. Proceedings of the LFG’13 Conference, 398–418. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/18/papers/lfg13lowe.pdf.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2014. Accented clitics in the Rgveda. Transactions of the Philological Society 112. 1. 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2015a. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The syntax and semantics of adjectival verb forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2015b. English possessive's: Clitic and affix. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2016. Clitics: Separating syntax and prosody. Journal of Linguistics, FirstView article. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002222671500002X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1916. A Vedic grammar for students. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 1999. West Greenlandic noun incorporation in a monohierarchical theory of grammar. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Kathol, Andreas, 47–62. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 2000. Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60. 4. 847–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugane, John M. 2003. Hybrid constructions in Gĩkũyũ: Agentive nominalizations and infinitive-gerund constructions. Nominals: Inside and out, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway, 235–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2010. Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies. Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, ed. by Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke, and König, Ekkehard, 123–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel, and Sadler, Louisa. 2007. Verbless clauses: Revealing the structure within. Architectures, rules and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan Bresnan, ed. by Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan, and Manning, Chris, 139–60. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2000. Composition. Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 1. Halbband/Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, vol. 1, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, 897–915. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 1996. Prominence relations and a-structure—Evidence from Danish synthetic compounding. Proceedings of the LFG ’96 Conference. Online: http:llcslipublications.stanford.edu/LFGlLFG1-1996llfg96oersnes.pdf.Google Scholar
Padrosa-Trias, Susanna. 2010. Are there coordinate compounds? Morphology and diachrony: Online proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 7. 98–111. Online: http:llwww3.lingue.unibo.itlmmm2lwp-contentluploadsl2013l98-111-Padrosa-Trias.pdf.Google Scholar
Payne, John, and Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. The Cambridge grammar of the English language, ed. by Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 323–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John, Huddleston, Rodney; and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2010. The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs. Word Structure 3. 1. 31–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Sheldon I. 2001. The death of Sanskrit. Comparative Studies in History and Society 43. 2. 392–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Sheldon I. 2006. The language of the gods in the world of men. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. Lexical matters, ed. by Sag, Ivan A. and Szabolcsi, Anna, 111–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosén, Victoria. 1996. The LFG architecture and ‘verbless’ syntactic constructions. Proceedings of the LFG ’96 Conference. Online: http:llcslipublications.stanford.edu/LFGlLFG1-1996llfg96rosen.pdf.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa, and Arnold, Doug. 1994. Prenominal adjectives and the phrasalllexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics 30. 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Louisa, and Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. Yearbook of Morphology 2000. 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56. 2. 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1986. Some notes on noun incorporation. Language 62. 1. 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio, and Guevara, Emiliano. 2006. Exocentric compounding in a typological framework. Lingue e linguaggio 5. 2. 185–206.Google Scholar
Schindler, Jochem. 1997. Zur internen Syntax der indogermanischen Nominalkomposita. Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, ed. by Crespo, Emilio and Ramón, José Luis García, 537–40. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77. 2. 324–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. A realizational approach to case. Proceedings of the LFG ’03 Conference, 387–401. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/8/lfg03spencer.pdf.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Case in Hindi. Proceedings of the LFG ’05 Conference, 429–46. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/10/lfg05spencer.pdf.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Syntactic vs. morphological case: Implications for morphosyntax. Case, valency and transitivity, ed. by Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and Swart, Peter de, 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Jacob Samuel. 1896. Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulger, Sebastian. 2009. Irish clefting and information-structure. Proceedings of the LFG ’09 Conference, 562–82. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/14/papers/lfg09sulger.pdf.Google Scholar
Suryakanta (ed.) 1970. Varadāmbikā-parinaya-campūḥ of Tirumalāmbā, with English translation, notes & introduction. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.Google Scholar
ten Hacken, Pius. 1994. Defining morphology: A principled approach to determining the boundaries of compounding, derivation, and inflection. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-projecting words: A case study of Swedish verbal particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubb, Gary A., and Boose, Emery R.. 2007. Scholastic Sanskrit: A manual for students. New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University in the City of New York.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. New reflections on grammaticalization, ed. by Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, 19–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel, and Börjars, Kersti. 2010. Grammaticalization and models of language. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme, 279–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard; and McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67. 3. 439–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2002. On lexical sharing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2005. English nonsyllabic auxiliary contractions: An analysis in LFG with lexical sharing. Proceedings of the LFG ’05 Conference, 468–86. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/10/lfg05wescoat.pdf.Google Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2007. Preposition-determiner contractions: An analysis in optimality-theoretic lexical-functional grammar with lexical sharing. Proceedings of the LFG ’07 Conference, 439–59. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/12/papers/lfg07wescoat.pdf.Google Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2009. Udi person markers and lexical integrity. Proceedings of the LFG ’09 Conference, 604–22. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/14/papers/lfg09wescoat.pdf.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1896. A Sanskrit grammar: Including both the Classical language, and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. 3rd edn. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hārtel.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59. 3. 502–13.Google Scholar
- 12
- Cited by