Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T15:11:11.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Typology of External Splits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Greville G. Corbett
Greville G. Corbett*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
*
Surrey Morphology Group, Literature and Languages, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK, [g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The lexicon divides into parts of speech (or lexical categories), and there are cross-cutting regularities (features). These two dimensions of analysis take us a long way, but several phenomena elude us. For these the term ‘split’ is used extensively (‘case split’, ‘split agreement’, and more), but in confusingly different ways. Yet there is a unifying notion here. I show that a split is an ADDITIONAL PARTITION, whether in the part-of-speech inventory or in the feature system. On this base an elegant typology can be constructed, using minimal machinery. The typology starts from four external relations (government, agreement, selection, and anti-government), and it specifies four types of split within each (sixteen possibilities in all). This typology (i) highlights less familiar splits, from diverse languages, and fits them into the larger picture; (ii) introduces a new relation, anti-government, and documents it; (iii) elucidates the complexities of multiple splits; and (iv) clarifies what exactly is split, which leads to a sharpening of our analyses and applies across different traditions.

Keywords

splitgovernmentagreementselectionanti-governmentcanonical typologysyntaxinflectional morphology

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 108 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 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

References

Abeillé, Anne, and Godard, Danièle. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 78. 404–52. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0145.10.1353/lan.2002.0145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Ackema, Peter, and Sorace, Antonella. 2017. Auxiliary selection. The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 424–55. London: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom072.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David, and Svenonius, Peter. 2011. Features in minimalist syntax. The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric, 27–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0002.Google Scholar
Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari): Mit Texten und Glossar. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas, Geniušienė, Emma, Girdenis, Aleksas, Nijolė, Sližienė, Tekorienė, Dalija, Adelė, Valeckienė; and Valiulytė, Elena, 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511586262.10.1017/CBO9780511586262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2017. Words and paradigms: Peter H. Matthews and the development of morphological theory. Transactions of the Philological Society 115. 1–13. DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12090.10.1111/1467-968X.12090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriani, Luigi. 2016. The syntax of the dialect of Bari. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation. DOI: 10.17863/CAM.15625.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban, and Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2016. Agreement and the structure of relative clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1):17. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.12.Google Scholar
Atraxovič, K. K. (ed.) 2003. Belaruska-ruski slovnik, I–III, 3rd edn., ed. by Padlužnaha, A. I.. Minsk: Belaruskaja èncyklapedyja.Google Scholar
Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5. 91–138. DOI: 10.1007/BF00161869.10.1007/BF00161869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, James S. 2018. Split intransitivity: Thematic roles, case and agreement. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation. DOI: 10.17863/CAM.31756.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107295186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In Coon et al., 111–34. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.5.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, Oleg. 2021. Paradigm structure influences syntactic behaviour: Ossetic case inflection. Modular design of grammar, ed. by Arka, I Wayan, Asudeh, Ash, and King, Tracy Holloway, 251–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844842.003.0016.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain, and Deulofeu, José. 2020. La rection. Encyclopédie grammaticale du français. Online: http://encyclogram.fr/notx/028/028_Notice.php.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, and Roberts, Ian. 2016. Parameter typology from a diachronic perspective: The case of conditional inversion. Theoretical approaches to linguistic variation, ed. by Bidese, Ermenegildo, Cognola, Federica, and Moroni, Manuela Caterina, 259–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25. 63–110. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-015-9254-3.10.1007/s11525-015-9254-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, Boyé, Gilles, Dal, Georgette, Giraudo, Hélène; and Namer, Fiammetta (eds.) 2018. The lexeme in descriptive and theoretical morphology. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1402520.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In Brown et al., 20–47. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0002.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2019. Canonical typology. The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, ed. by Audring, Jenny and Masini, Francesca, 409–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bondarenko, V. S. 1961. Predlogi v russkom jazyke. Moscow: Učpedgiz.Google Scholar
Brosig, Benjamin. 2015. Negation in Mongolic. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja/Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 95. 67–136. DOI: 10.33340/susa.82643.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina; and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 2015. The noun strikes back. Balkanistica (Special issue: Od Čikago i nazad: Papers to honor Victor A. Friedman on the occasion of his retirement, ed. by Dyer, Donald L., Kramer, Christina E., and Joseph, Brian D.) 28. 65–78.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2020. The head of the nominal is N, not D: N-to-D movement, hybrid agreement, and conventionalized expressions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1):15. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1031.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin, Dinh, Xuyen; and Kim, Lan. 2018. Selection, idioms, and the structure of nominal phrases with and without classifiers. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1):42. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.288.Google Scholar
Bugarski, Ranko. 2012. Language, identity and borders in the former Serbo-Croatian area. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33. 219–35. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2012.663376.10.1080/01434632.2012.663376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugarski, Ranko. 2019. Past and current developments involving pluricentric Serbo-Croatian and its official heirs. Language variation: A factor of increasing complexity and a challenge for language policy within Europe: Contributions to the EFNIL conference 2018 in Amsterdam, ed. by Schoonheim, Tanneke and Van Hoorde, Johan, 105–14. Budapest: Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Online: http://www.efnil.org/documents/conference-publications/amsterdam-2018.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2015. The nature of allomorphy and exceptionality: Evidence from Burushaski plurals. Understanding allomorphy: Perspectives from optimality theory, ed. by Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Mascaró, Joan, 107–76. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cerri, Adriano. 2019. The frequency of the use of Baltic numerals: Cognitive, linguistic, and cultural factors. Baltistica 54. 257–86. DOI: 10.15388/Baltistica.54.2.2393.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, and Bond, Oliver. 2016. Competing controllers and agreement potential. Archi: Complexities of agreement in cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Bond, Oliver, Corbett, Greville G., Chumakina, Marina, and Brown, Dunstan, 77–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747291.003.0004.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747291.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51. 406–18. DOI: 10.2307/412863.10.2307/412863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane; and Travis, Lisa (eds.) 2017. The Oxford handbook of ergativity. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Preminger, Omer. 2012. Towards a unified account of person splits. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 29. 310–18. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/29/abstract2716.html.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica, and Preminger, Omer. 2017. Split ergativity is not about ergativity. In Coon et al., 226–52. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139164344.10.1017/CBO9781139164344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Morphology-free syntax: Two potential counter-examples from Serbo-Croat. A linguist's linguist: Studies in South Slavic linguistics in honor of E. Wayles Browne, ed. by Franks, Steven, Chidambaram, Vrinda, and Joseph, Brian, 149–66. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2011. Higher order exceptionality in inflectional morphology. Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, ed. by Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 107–26. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110219098.107.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139206983.10.1017/CBO9781139206983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Brown et al., 48–65. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015a. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91. 145–93. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0003.10.1353/lan.2015.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015b. Hybrid nouns and their complexity. Agreement from a diachronic perspective, ed. by Fleischer, Jürg, Rieken, Elisabeth, and Widmer, Paul, 191–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110399967-010.10.1515/9783110399967-010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: A typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29. 51–108. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-018-9336-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2021. Feature-based competition: A thousand years of Slavonic possessives. All things morphology: Its independence and its interfaces, ed. by Moradi, Sedigheh, Haag, Marcia, Rees-Miller, Janie, and Petrovic, Andrija, 171–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2022a. Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features. Morphology 32. 45–91. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-021-09387-5.10.1007/s11525-021-09387-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2022b. The agreement hierarchy revisited: The typology of controllers. Word Structure (Special issue: The many facets of agreement, ed. by Paciaroni, Tania, Idone, Alice, and Loporcaro, Michele) 15. 181–225. DOI: 10.3366/word.2022.0208.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Browne, Wayles. 2018. Serbo-Croat: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian. The world's major languages, 3rd edn., ed. by Comrie, Bernard, 339–56. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700000074.10.1017/S0022226700000074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M.; and McGlashan, Scott (eds.) 1993. Heads in grammatical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511659454.10.1017/CBO9780511659454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Schembri, Adam; and Woll, Bencie. 2013. Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua 137. 230–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.010.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, Brendan. 2016. Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of lengua de signos española (Spanish Sign Language). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/11245/2.168517.10.1075/sll.19.2.06cosCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on split intransitivity and fluid intransitivity. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7: Selected papers from CSSP 2007, ed. by Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo, 139–68. Online: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7/creissels-eiss7.pdf.Google Scholar
D'Alessandro, Roberta, and Roberts, Ian. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 41–72. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-009-9085-1.10.1007/s11049-009-9085-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Lowe, John J.; and Mycock, Louise. 2019. The Oxford reference guide to lexical functional grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198733300.001.0001.10.1093/oso/9780198733300.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2019. Repartitioning. Language 95. 711–50. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0071.10.1353/lan.2019.0071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117. 1636–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010.10.1016/j.lingua.2006.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rachewiltz, Igor. 2004. The secret history of the Mongols. Leiden: Brill. [via Brosig 2015].Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2016. Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic. Journal of Linguistics 52. 533–64. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226715000031.10.1017/S0022226715000031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2017. Investigations on mixed agreement: Polite plurals, hybrid nouns and coordinate structures. Morphology 27. 253–310. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-017-9301-3.10.1007/s11525-017-9301-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511611896.10.1017/CBO9780511611896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolberg, Florian. 2019. Agreement in language contact: Gender development in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.208.10.1075/slcs.208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedden, Sebastian. 2022. Agreement and argument realization in Mian discourse. Word Structure (Special issue: The many facets of agreement, ed. by Paciaroni, Tania, Idone, Alice, and Loporcaro, Michele) 15. 283–304. DOI: 10.3366/word.2022.0211.Google Scholar
Feist, Timothy, and Palancar, Enrique L.. 2021. Paradigmatic restructuring and the diachrony of stem alternations in Chichimec. Language 97. 1–41. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2021.0000.10.1353/lan.2021.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippova, V. M. 1964. Izmenenija v glagol′nyx slovosočetanijax. Očerki po istoričeskoj grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XIX veka: IV: Izmenenija v systeme slovosočetanij v russkom literaturnom jazyke XIX veka, ed. by Vinogradov, V. V. and Švedova, N. Ju., 17–127. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2018. The morphosyntactic typology of Papuan languages. The languages and linguistics of the New Guinea area: A comprehensive guide, ed. by Palmer, Bill, 895–937. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110295252-008.Google Scholar
Forbes, Clarissa. 2021. Nominal types in Gitksan split-absolutive agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39. 1087–1128. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-020-09497-5.10.1007/s11049-020-09497-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195089707.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven. 2023. Numerals and quantity expressions. The Cambridge handbook of Slavic linguistics, ed. by Browne, Wayles and Šipka, Danko. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66. 261–96. DOI: 10.2307/414887.10.2307/414887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giammarco, Ernesto. 1973. Selezione del verbo ausiliare nei paradigmi dei tempi composti. Abruzzo 11. 152–78.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra. 2018. The packagers -ant- and -a-, and the origin of split ergativity in Hittite (and Lycian). Proceedings of the 29th annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. by Goldstein, David M., Jamison, Stephanie W., and Vine, Brent, 77–115. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı, and Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Graudina, L. K., Ickovič;, V. A. and Katlinskaja, L. P.. 1976. Grammatičeskaja pravil'nost' russkoj reči: Opyt častotno-stilističeskogo slovarja variantov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans, Engdahl, Elisabet; and Laanemets, Anu. 2017. Introduction to the special issue on variation in auxiliary selection. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 49. 107–17. DOI: 10.1080/03440463.2017.1380252.10.1080/03740463.2017.1380252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigor'eva, A. D. 1951. K izučeniju sintaksisa predložnogo upravlenija v russkom literaturnom jazyke pervoj treti XIX v. (upotreblenie predloga po v jazyke Puškina). Materialy i issledovanija po istorii russkogo literaturnogo jazyka, vol. II, ed. by Vinogradov, V. V., 167–203. Moscow: AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Hamari, Arja, and Aasmäe, Niina. 2015. Negation in Erzya. In Miestamo et al., 293–323.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haug, Haug Dag Trygve, and Nikitina, Tatiana 2016. Feature sharing in agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34. 865–910. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9321-9.10.1007/s11049-015-9321-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2022. Against trivializing language description (and comparison). Studies in Language 46. 133–60. DOI: 10.1075/sl.19090.him.10.1075/sl.19090.himCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71. 103–32. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6.10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hončová, MarkÉta. 2012. La scelta del verbo ausiliare nei dialetti di Corropoli e Nereto [Auxiliary choice in the dialects of Corropoli and Nereto]. Prague: Charles University Prague dissertation. Online: https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/42328/150012549.pdf.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil. 2013. Defacing agreement. Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, 335–55. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/18 /abstracts/lfg13abs-hristov.html.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil. 2021. Agreement and case assignment in the context of nominal coordination and beyond: A lexical-functional grammar account. Sofia: Paradigma.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23. 109–32. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700011051.10.1017/S0022226700011051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Icković, V. A. 1977. Očerki sintaksičeskoj normy: 4: Konstrukcii s predlogom po. Grammatika i norma, ed. by Ickovič, V. A., Ms'kevič, G. I., and Skvorcov, L. I., 216–34. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Iomdin, Leonid L. 1991. Slovarnaja stat'ja predloga ‘PO’. Semiotka i informatika 32. 94–120.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania, and Matushansky, Ora. 2018. Cardinals: The syntax and semantics of cardinal-containing expressions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8703.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isxakov, F. G., and Pal'mbax, A. A.. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka: Fonetika i morfologija. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo vostočnoj literatury.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Audring, Jenny. 2020. The texture of the lexicon: Relational morphology and the parallel architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198827900.001.0001.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 1993. A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110867930.10.1515/9783110867930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf, and Rosemeyer, Malte (eds.) 2015. Auxiliary selection revisited: Gradience and gradualness. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110348866.10.1515/9783110348866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1966. The syntactical distribution of the Cheremis genitive: I. Helsinki: Suomalais Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1998. Mari. The Uralic languages, ed. by Abondolo, Daniel, 219–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Case variation and case alternation in Indo-European and beyond: A diachronic typological perspective. Argument structure in flux: The Naples-Capri papers, ed. by van Gelderen, Elly, Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Cennamo, Michela, 3–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kwon, Nahyun, and Round, Erich R.. 2015. Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25. 1–27. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-014-9250-z.10.1007/s11525-014-9250-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2020. The DP hypothesis and (a)symmetries between DP and CP. Linguistic Analysis 42. 507–48. Online: https://www.linguisticanalysis.com/42-3-4-2017/.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2000. A comparative syntax of the dialects of Southern Italy: A minimalist approach. (Publications of the Philological Society 33.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2014. Romance auxiliary selection in light of Romanian evidence. Diachronic variation in Romanian, ed. by Pană, Gabriela, Dindelegan, , Zafiu, Rodica, Dragomirescu, Adina, Nicula, Irina, and Nicolae, Alexandru, 3–35. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2019. Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection. Historical linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27-31 July 2015, ed. by Cennamo, Michela and Fabrizio, Claudia, 343–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen: II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in den Einzelsprachen, ed. by Seiler, Hansjakob and Stachowiak, Franz Josef, 201–67. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libert, Alan R. 2007. A principles and parameters account of the case marking properties of the Turkish postposition için and its cognates in other Turkic languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 2)) 54. 231–43.Google Scholar
Libert, Alan R. 2008a. The limits to variation in Turkish nominal morphosyntax. Selected papers from the 2007 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, ed. by Curnow, Timothy J.. Online: http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2007/libert.pdf.Google Scholar
Libert, Alan R. 2008b. Case marking of Turkic adpositional objects. Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives, ed. by Kurzon, Dennis and Adler, Silvia, 229–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lichte, Timm. 2021. Against strict headedness in syntax. Journal of Language Modelling 9. 291–348. Online: https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/249.Google Scholar
Łojasiewicz, Anna. 1979. O budowie wyrażeń z przyimkiem po dystrybutywnym. Polonica 5. 153–60.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2007. On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics 45. 173–222. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2007.005.10.1515/LING.2007.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2014. Perfective auxiliation in Italo-Romance: The complementarity of historical and modern cross-dialectal evidence. Diachrony and dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy, ed. by Benincà, Paola, Ledgeway, Adam, and Vincent, Nigel, 48–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701781.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701781.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2015. Perfective auxiliation with reflexives in Medieval Romance: Syntactic vs. semantic gradience. In Kailuweit & Rosemeyer, 43–77. DOI: 10.1515/9783110348866-003.10.1515/9783110348866-003.10.1515/9783110348866-003.10.1515/9783110348866-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2016. Auxiliary selection and participial agreement. The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, ed. by Ledgeway, Adam and Maiden, Martin, 802–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.003.0049.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur. 2017. Tense and aspect among the factors conditioning the distribution of quotatives: Data from Andi. Talk presented at the 12th conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT), Workshop ‘Reported speech as a syntactic domain’, Canberra, 15 December 2017.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2014. Towards a typology of split ergativity: A TAM-hierarchy for alignment splits. Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective, ed. by Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Malchukov, Andrej, and Richards, Marc D., 275–96. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110344134.275.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., and Spencer, Andrew (eds.) 2009. The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.001.0001.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Savoia, Leonardo M.. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: Morfosintassi generative, I–III. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of ESCOL 1991, ed. by Westphal, German F., Ao, Benjamin, and Chae, Hee-Rahk, 234–53. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje. 1996. A short grammar of Lithuanian. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Mayo, Peter J. 1988. The case governed by the preposition pa in Byelorussian. The Journal of Byelorussian Studies 6. 50–65. [Renamed The Journal of Belarusian Studies, 2013.] Online: https://belarusjournal.com/sites/default/files/JBS_1988_6_The%20Case%20Governed%20by%20the%20Preposition%20na%20in%20Byelorussian.pdf.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2007. Auxiliary selection. Language and Linguistics Compass 16. 674–708. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00034.x.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00034.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel‘čuk, Igor’ A. 1985. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach: Sonderband 16). Vienna: Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien.10.3726/b12909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2019. Roots don't select, categorial heads do: Lexical-selection of PPs may vary by category. The Linguistic Review 36. 325–41. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2019-2020.10.1515/tlr-2019-2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metslang, Helle, Pajusalu, Karl; and Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2015. Negation in Livonian. In Miestamo et al., 433–56.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne; and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta (eds.) 2015. Negation in Uralic languages. (Typological studies in language 108.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip H., Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1997. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Four apparent counterexamples in French. Journal of Linguistics 33. 67–90. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226796006305.10.1017/S0022226796006305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67. 510–46. DOI: 10.2307/415036.10.1353/lan.1991.0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moroz, George, and Verhees, Samira. 2019. Variability in noun classes assignment in Zilo Andi: Experimental data. Iran and the Caucasus 23. 268–82. DOI: 10.1163/1573384X-20190306.10.1163/1573384X-20190306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim. 1991. Government by the governed. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists, Berlin/GDR, August 10–August 15, 1987, ed. by Bahner, Werner, Schildt, Joachim, and Viehweger, Dieter, 618–21. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D.; and Koenig, Jean-Pierre (eds.) 2021. Head-driven phrase structure grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5543318.Google Scholar
Muravenko, Elena V. 2014. Izmenenie upravlenija predloga po v russkom jazyke. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana: Trudy instituta lingvističeskix issledovanij 2. 643–72. Online: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/izmenenie-upravleniya-predloga-po-v-russkom-yazyke.Google Scholar
Nash, Léa. 2017. The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian. In Coon et al., 175–200. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.8.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.8.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.8.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, Tore, and Makarova, Anastasia. 2018. The decade construction rivalry in Russian: Using a corpus to study historical linguistics. Diachronica 35. 71–106. DOI: 10.1075/dia.16043.nes.10.1075/dia.16043.nesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina. 2005. Inclusive and exclusive in Turkic languages. Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction, ed. by Filimonova, Elena, 341–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina. 2014. Innovations and archaisms in Siberian Turkic spatial case paradigms: A Transeurasian historical and areal perspective. Paradigm change: In the Transeurasian languages and beyond, ed. by Robbeets, Martine and Bisang, Walter, 257–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2018. Agreement with overt and null arguments in Ingush. Linguistics 56. 845–63. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2018-0015.10.1515/ling-2018-0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana, and Trygve, Dag Haug, Truslew. 2016. Syntactic nominalization in Latin: A case of non-canonical subject agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 114. 25–50. DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12061.10.1111/1467-968X.12061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2013. Unpacking finiteness. In Brown et al. 2013, 99–122. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0005.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0005.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0005.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604326.003.0005CrossRefGoogle 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
Oftedal, Magne. 1956. A linguistic survey of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland, vol. 3: The Gaelic of Leurbost, Isle of Lewis. Oslo: Aschehoug & Co.Google Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 2018. Connecting the typology and semantics of nominal possession: Alienability splits and the morphology–semantics interface. Morphology 28. 99–144. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-017-9319-6.10.1007/s11525-017-9319-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, Simon E. 2017. A grammar of Aguaruna (Iiniá Chicham). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110405590.10.1515/9783110405590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya, Lyutikova, Ekaterina; and Gerasimova, Anastasia. 2018. Case marking in Russian eventive nominalizations: Inherent vs. dependent case theory. Russian Linguistics 42. 221–36. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-018-9196-6.10.1007/s11185-018-9196-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pescarini, Diego, and Loporcaro, Michele. 2022. Variation in Romance. The Cambridge handbook of Romance linguistics, ed. by Ledgeway, Adam and Maiden, Martin, 150–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108580410.005.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Makharoblidze, Tamar; and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2022. Negation and negative concord in Georgian Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 13:734845. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.734845.10.3389/fpsyg.2022.734845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piantadosi, Steven T., and Gibson, Edward. 2014. Quantitative standards for absolute linguistic universals. Cognitive Science 38. 736–56. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12088.10.1111/cogs.12088CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, Christopher. 2008. Review article on Structuring sense, vols. 1 and 2, by Hagit Borer. Language 84. 343–69. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0021.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. Case assignment and the complement/adjunct dichotomy: A non-configurational constraint-based approach. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen dissertation.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2006. O dystrybutywnym PO i liczebnikach jedynkowych. Polonica 26–27.171–78.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2008. Generalised quantifier restrictions on the arguments of the Polish distributive preposition PO. Studia Kognitywne 8. 159–77.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Patejuk, Agnieszka. 2013. The syntax of distance distributivity in Polish: Weak heads in LFG via restriction. Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, 482–502. Online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/18/abstracts/lfg13abs-przepiorkowskipatejuk.html.10.21248/hpsg.2013.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puškar-Gallien, Zorica. 2019. Resolving polite conflicts in predicate agreement. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):33. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.587.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Nouniness. Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu, 134–257. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R., and Corbett, Greville G.. 2020. Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics. Linguistic Typology 24. 489–525. DOI: 10.1515/lingty-2020-2060.10.1515/lingty-2020-2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnev, Pavel, and Volkova, Anna. 2020. Case marking in Russian eventive nominalisations revisited. Russian Linguistics 44. 157–75. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-020-09228-9.10.1007/s11185-020-09228-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas; and Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2020. The NP vs. DP debate: Why previous arguments are inconclusive and what a good argument could look like: Evidence from agreement with hybrid nouns. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1):83. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1123.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. A comprehensive semantics for agreement. Paper presented at Phi-Workshop, McGill University, August 2004. Online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244954107_A_Comprehensive_Semantics_for_Agreement.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 1989. Number and gender in Miya. Current progress in Chadic linguistics: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Chadic Linguistics: Boulder, Colorado, 1–2 May, 1987, ed. by Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, 171–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 1998. A grammar of Miya. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Severskaia, Ol′ga. 2022. Po priezdu, po okonchaniiu … when did grammatical variation begin? Russian grammar: System – usus – variation, ed. by Warditz, Vladislava, 461–68. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 2003. Case: Abstract vs. morphological. New perspectives on case theory, ed. by Brandner, Ellen and Zinsmeister, Heike, 223–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages (Linguistic series 22), ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Skoblikova, E. S. 1971. Soglasovanie i upravlenie v russkom jazyke. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter W. 2017. The syntax of semantic agreement in English. Journal of Linguistics 53. 823–63. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226716000360.10.1017/S0022226716000360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Stark, T. Cedric. 1974. The plurality split. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 657–71.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In Malchukov & Spencer, 185–99. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0013.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0013.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0013.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199206476.013.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Sentence negation and periphrasis. Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, ed. by Chumakina, Marina and Corbett, Greville G., 227–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197265253.003.0009.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2016. How are words related? Morphological metatheory, ed. by Siddiqi, Daniel and Harley, Heidi, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2018. On lexical entries and lexical representations. In Bonami et al., 277–301. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1407009.10.5281/zenodo.1407009.10.5281/zenodo.1407009.10.5281/zenodo.1407009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štichauer, Pavel. 2018. Lexical splits within periphrasis: Mixed perfective auxiliation systems in Italo-Romance. Morphology 28. 1–23. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-017-9313-z.10.1007/s11525-017-9313-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2002. Is ‘one’ still ‘one’ in ‘twenty-one‘? On agreement and government properties of cardinal numerals in the languages of Europe. STUF—Language Typology and Universals 55. 354–402. DOI: 10.1524/stuf.2002.55.4.354.10.1524/stuf.2002.55.4.354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Kettler, Sonja, Stroh, Cornelia; and Urdze, Aina. 2008. Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.101.10.1075/slcs.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tuite, Kevin. 2017. Alignment and orientation in Kartvelian (South Caucasian). In Coon et al., 1114–43. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.45.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.45.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.45.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turunen, Rigina. 2011. Parts of speech in non-typical function: (A)symmetrical encoding of non-verbal predicates in Erzya. Linguistic Discovery 9. 134–72. DOI: 10.1349/PS1.1534-0852.A.387.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Goussev)., Ludo Lejeune (with Valentin 2013. The prohibitive. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Anthropology, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/71.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2020. Agreement, disagreement and the NP vs. DP debate. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1):65. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1119.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–60. DOI: 10.2307/414886.10.2307/414886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2011. Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 999–1031. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9149-x.10.1007/s11049-011-9149-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, and Zlatić, Larisa, 2012. The wrong two faces. Language 88. 380–87. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0043.10.1353/lan.2012.0043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wier, Thomas R. 2011. Georgian morphosyntax and feature hierarchies in natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation. Online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/1763b29897544e6813e207acc44df00e.Google Scholar
Willmott, Jo. 2013. Negation in the history of Greek. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, vol. 1: Case studies, ed. by Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher, and Breitbarth, Anne, 299–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602537.003.0008.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, and Seržant, Ilja A.. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. Diachronic typology of differential argument marking, ed. by Seržant, Ilja A. and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, 1–34. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1228243.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2016. Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanation in verb agreement. Linguistics 54. 531–61. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2016-0011.10.1515/ling-2016-0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2017. Split ergativity in syntax and at morphological spellout. In Coon et al., 205–25. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.9.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.9.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.9.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padež‘ v lingvističeskix opisanijax. Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, ed. by Zaliznjak, Andrej A., 53–87. Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted in Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: S priloženiem iz bran nyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju, 613–47. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury, 2002.].Google Scholar
Ždanova, A. K. 1965. Predlog ‘po’ pri mestoimenijax i otdel′nyx formax imen suščestvitel′nyx. Naučnye trudy Krasnodarskogo pedagogičeskogo instituta 44. 74–85.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21. 1–29. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700010008.10.1017/S0022226700010008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Corbett supplementary material

Corbett supplementary material
Download Corbett supplementary material(File)
File 473.1 KB