Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T20:21:50.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case and agreement alignment in ditransitive constructions: A typological gap and its explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

András Bárány
András Bárány*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
[abarany@ed.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I describe a typological gap in case and agreement alignment in ditransitive constructions. In languages in which verbal agreement is controlled by the subject and at most one object, object case and agreement in ditransitive constructions do not exhibit all logically possible combinations of alignment. I show that this typological gap follows from assumptions about the structure of ditransitive constructions (recipients c-command themes) and the interaction of morphological case and agreement (case marking restricts agreement). These assumptions derive exactly and only the attested patterns of alignment. I also argue that the typological gap in ditransitive constructions has a parallel in transitive constructions, providing further support for the proposals made here.

Keywords

ditransitive constructionscase alignmentagreement alignmentmorphosyntaxtypologytypological gapslocality

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , September 2024 , pp. 385 - 432
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

*

The research reported here was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 707404 (LEaDing Fellows Programme) while I was at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. I am grateful to Jenneke van der Wal, Lisa Cheng, and Jenny Doetjes in Leiden and to audiences online and in Berlin, Frankfurt, Utrecht, and Vancouver. Discussions with Rafael Abramovitz and Pietro Baggio provided valuable insights. I also thank Friederike Classe for her help with the data and Jutta-Maria Hartmann for her comments. Last but not least, the referees and editors for Language provided detailed and constructive feedback that improved this paper considerably.

References

Aboh, Enoch Oladé. 2010. Information structure begins with the numeration. IBERIA: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(1). 12–42. Online: https://revistascientificas.us.es/index.php/iberia/article/view/85.Google Scholar
Abramovitz, Rafael. 2020. Successive-cyclic wh-movement feeds case competition in Koryak. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005213.Google Scholar
Abramovitz, Rafael. 2021. Topics in the grammar of Koryak. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/139986.Google Scholar
Adams, Nikki. 2010. The Zulu ditransitive verb phrase. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1983. Indirect object advancement in Tzotzil. Studies in relational grammar 1, ed. by Perlmutter, David M., 272–302. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena; and Sevdali, Christina. 2014. Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17. 1–34. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-014-9064-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amberber, Mengistu. 2005. Differential subject marking in Amharic. Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, ed. by Amberber, Mengistu and de Hoop, Helen, 295–319. London: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50013-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Andersen, Torben. 2018. The encoding of subjects and objects in Jumjum, a Nilotic OV language. Lingua 204. 78–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arensen, John. 1982. Murle grammar. (Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages 2.) Juba: College of Education, University of Juba, Summer Institute of Linguistics, and Institute of Regional Languages. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/35946.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2). 255–74. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107295186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2018. Structural case: A realm of syntactic microparameters. Linguistic Analysis 41. 193–240. Online: https://www.linguisticanalysis.com/volume-41-issue-3-4/.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Kramer, Ruth. 2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns: Amharic objects (and beyond). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36. 1035–88. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9401-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Vinokurova, Nadya. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 593–642. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Jonathan. 2007. The verbal morphology of Santiam Kalapuya. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 1(2). 1–98. Online: https://www.sfu.ca/nwjl/Articles/V001_N02/Banks.html.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2015. Differential object marking in Hungarian and the morphosyntax of case and agreement. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2017. Person, case, and agreement: The morphosyntax of inverse agreement and global case splits. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198804185.001.0001.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2018. DOM and dative case. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1):97. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András. 2021a. A typological gap in ditransitive constructions: No secundative case and indirective agreement. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 38. 43–53. Online: https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/38/abstract3549.html.Google Scholar
Bárány, András. 2021b. Partially ordered case hierarchies. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1):76. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.1451.Google Scholar
Bárány, András, and Classe, Nora Friederike. 2022. Data set of ditransitive alignment patterns. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/K386X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, András, and Kalin, Laura. 2020. Introduction. Case, agreement, and their interactions: New perspectives on differential argument marking, ed. by Bárány, András and Kalin, Laura, 1–26. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110666137-001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2). 347–54. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178491.Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1997. The nature of object agreement in Hungarian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 19–34. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/45446.Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Morfoszintaxis és interpretáció: A magyar inflexiós jelenségek szintaktikai háttere [Morphosyntax and interpretation: The syntactic background of Hungarian inflectional phenomena]. Budapest: ELTE dissertation. Online: https://mek.oszk.hu/04000/04075/.Google Scholar
Bascom, Burton. 1982. Northern Tepehuan. Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches: Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar 3, ed. by Langacker, Ronald W., 267–393. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/8912.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular clauses. Journal of Linguistics 53(3). 463–99. DOI: 10.1017/S002222671700010X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. by Pérez-Leroux, Ana-Teresa and Roberge, Yves, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1). 35–73. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, Richard, and Beller, Patricia. 1977. Huasteca Nahuatl. Modern Aztec grammar sketches: Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar 2, ed. by Langacker, Ronald, 199–306. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/8926.Google Scholar
Berghäll, Liisa. 2015. A grammar of Mauwake. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.17169/langsci.b67.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1996. Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. Chicago Linguistic Society 32. 11–22.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 2nd edn., ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Rai, Manoj, Paudyal, Netra P., Banjade, Goma, Bhatta, Toya N., Gaenszle, Martin, Lieven, Elena, Rai, Ichchha Purna, Rai, Novel Kishore; and Stoll, Sabine. 2010. The syntax of three-argument verbs in Chintang and Belhare (Southeastern Kiranti). In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 382–408. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Yādava, Yogendra P.. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5). 343–73. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00048-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birchall, Joshua. 2014. Argument marking patterns in South American languages. Utrecht: LOT. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/argument-marking-patterns-in-south-american-languages-argument-marking-patterns-in-south-american-languages.Google Scholar
Birk, Birk David Barry. 1974. The MalakMalak language, Daly River (Western Arnhem Land). Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. DOI: 10.25911/5d723cf855d61.Google Scholar
Bíró, Bernadett, and Sipőcz, Katalin. 2017. The Mansi ditransitive constructions. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 6. 41–55. Online: https://full.btk.ppke.hu/index.php/FULL/article/view/53.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope, and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-1412-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2002. Notes on agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery 1(1). DOI: 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63(4). 741–82. DOI: 10.2307/415717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Colin, and Forbes, Clarissa. 2018. Three (hidden) obliques in Gitksan. Paper presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
Bruce, Leslie P. Jr. 1979. A grammar of Alamblak (Papua New Guinea). Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. DOI: 10.25911/5d723f2d2b4f6.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2). 287–305. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2010.41.2.287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buell, Leston Chandler. 2005. Issues in Zulu verbal morphosyntax. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/10037/2203.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil language of El Salvador. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110881998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Matthew J. 2016. The Ngkolmpu language with special reference to distributed exponence. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. DOI: 10.25911/5d74e0cfd5b85.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Downing, Laura J.. 2009. Where's the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26. 207–38. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2009.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Grammatical relations in Huichol. Studies in transitivity (Syntax and semantics 15), ed. by Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A., 95–115. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9789004368903_007.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Reply to Saksena: Further reflections on verb agreement in Hindi. Linguistics 23(1). 143–46. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1985.23.1.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2013. A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement. Natural Language Semantics 21. 345–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-013-9096-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2022. Object agreement in Hungarian: In defense of a semantic solution. Journal of Uralic Linguistics 1(1). 121–48. DOI: 10.1075/jul.00005.cop.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2012. The objective conjugation in Hungarian: Agreement without phi-features. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 699–740. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-012-9165-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, H. K. J. 1965. Grammar of the Sentani language: With specimen texts and vocabulary. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-6588-6.Google Scholar
Creider, Chat A., and Creider, Jane Tapsubei. 1989. A grammar of Nandi. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Crevels, Mily. 2010. Ditransitives in Itonama. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 678–709. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1998. An Erromangan (Sye) grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 1997. A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An indigenous language of south-western Colombia. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/145308.Google Scholar
Cyffer, Norbert. 1978. Die Verbalstruktur im Kanuri. Afrika und Übersee: Sprachen, Kulturen 61. 294–311.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1986. Plains Cree morphosyntax. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7g81p0mw.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511993473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Ergative case and the transitive subject: A view from Nez Perce. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 73–120. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-009-9081-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2015a. A note on Nez Perce verb agreement, with sample paradigms. Papers for ICSNL 50: The fiftieth International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (The University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 40), 389–413. Online: https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/01/24-Deal-ICSNL50_final-26.pdf.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2015b. Interaction and satisfaction in φ-agreement. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 45. 1–14.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2019. Raising to ergative: Remarks on applicatives of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 50(2). 388–415. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2024. Interaction, satisfaction, and the PCC. Linguistic Inquiry 55(1). 39–94. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2025. Current models of Agree. Move and Agree: Towards a formal typology, ed. by Crippen, James, Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Keupdijo, Hermann. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. When Hungarians Agree (to disagree). New York: CUNY Graduate Center, ms.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1979. Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1986. Comparative survey of morphology and syntax in Brazilian Arawakan. Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1, ed. by Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 469–566. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110850819.469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 1982. The Turkana language. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 2009. Datives in Nilotic in a typological perspective. Afrikanistik online 2009. Online: https://www.afrikanistik-aegyptologie-online.de/archiv/2009/2355/.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 2010. Differential object marking in Nilo-Saharan. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 31(1). 13–46. DOI: 10.1515/jall.2010.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döhler, Christian. 2018. A grammar of Komnzo. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1477799.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110805543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Utrecht: LOT. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/a-grammar-of-bantawa-a-grammar-of-bantawa-grammar-paradigm-tables-glossary-and-texts-of-a-rai-language-of-eastern-nepal.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4). 808–45. DOI: 10.2307/415173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1997. Gramática del idioma Yanesha' (Amuesha). (Serie lingüística Peruana.) Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael. 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. DOI: 10.25911/5d77842288837.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of H ungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511755088.Google Scholar
Estevam, Adriana Machado. 2011. Morphosyntaxe du Xavante: Langue jê du Mato Grosso (Brésil). Paris: Université Denis Diderot–Paris 7 dissertation.Google Scholar
Estrada Fernández, Zarina. 2014. Gramática de referencia del pima bajo, vol. 1. (Colección lingüística, serie 9: Gramáticas.) Sonora: Universidad de Sonora. Online: https://maestriaenlinguistica.unison.mx/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Gramatica_de_referencia_del_pima_bajo_Vo.pdf.Google Scholar
Evans, Nick. 1997. Role or cast? Noun incorporation and complex predicates in Mayali. Complex predicates, ed. by Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, 397–430. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L., and Kern, Barbara. 1997. Wari': The Pacaas Novos language of Western Brazil. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
F. Gulyás, Nikolett. 2018. Ditranzitív szerkezetek a keleti hantiban: A mə- ‘ad’ ige. Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok 30. 71–95. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10831/49687.Google Scholar
Fabian, Grace, Fabian, Edmund; and Waters, Bruce. 1998. Morphology, syntax and cohesion in Nabak, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific linguistics C-144.) Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/146193.Google Scholar
Facundes, Facundes Sidney da. 2000. The language of the Apurinã people of Brazil (Maipure/Arawak). Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation. Online: https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/content/dam/arts-sciences/linguistics/AlumniDissertations/Facundes%20dissertation.pdf.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1978. On indirect objects in universal syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society 14. 76–87.Google Scholar
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Newport, Elissa L.; and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. Miniature artificial language learning as a complement to typological data. The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism, ed. by Ortega, Lourdes, Tyler, Andrea E., Park, Hae In, and Uno, Mariko, 211–32. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI: 10.1353/book45841.Google Scholar
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Newport, Elissa L.; and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2017. Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: Evidence from word order and case marking. Cognitive Science 41(2). 416–46. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, Helder Perri. 2017. Yanomama clause structure. Utrecht: LOT. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/yanomama-clause-structure.Google Scholar
Forbes, Clarissa. 2018. Persistent ergativity: Agreement and splits in Tsimshianic. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1807/91770.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fougou, M. Aboubacar, Hutchison, John P., Jarrett, Kevin; and Yacoudima, Adam. 1986. Nahawu kanuriye [Kanuri grammar]. Niamey: INDRAP.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2008. A grammar of Gidar. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Frank, Paul Stephen. 1985. A grammar of Ika. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Friberg, Barbara. 1996. Konjo's peripatetic person markers. Papers in Austronesian linguistics 3, ed. by Steinhauer, Hein, 137–71. Canberra: Australian National University. DOI: 10.15144/PL-A84.137.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy. 2001. The morphosyntax of Mekens (Tupí). Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Georg, Stefan, and Volodin, Alexander P.. 1999. Die itelmenische Sprache: Grammatik und Texte. (Tunguso Sibirica 5.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Georgala, Efthymia. 2012. Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A minimalist account of multitransitivity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1813/29290.Google Scholar
Georgi, Doreen. 2012. A relativized probing approach to person encoding in local scenarios. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 153–210. DOI: 10.1075/lv.12.2.02geo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, Doreen. 2013. Deriving the distribution of person portmanteaux by relativized probing. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 42. 155–68.Google Scholar
Girón, Jesús Mario. 2008. Una gramática del Wnsöjöt (Puinave). Utrecht: LOT. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/una-gramatica-del-wansohot-puinave-una-gramaticadel-wansohot-puinave.Google Scholar
Golluscio, Lucía A. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Mapudungun. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 710–56. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Lynn. 1986. Maricopa morphology and syntax. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2019. Monotonicity as an effective theory of morphosyntactic variation. Journal of Language Modelling 7(2). 3–47. DOI: 10.15398/jlm.v7i2.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L., Laughren, Mary; and Simpson, Jane. 1995. Warlpiri. Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, 1430–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110142631.2.21.1430.Google Scholar
Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/77875.Google Scholar
Harđarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2016. A case for a weak case contiguity hypothesis—A reply to Caha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34. 1329–43. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-016-9328-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardman, Martha James. 1966. Jaqaru: Outline of phonological and morphological structure. The Hague: Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783111657127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1). 31–70. DOI: 10.1075/livy.2.04har.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2018. Syntax of ditransitives. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. 2016. The syntax and focus structure of specificational copular clauses and clefts. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Harvey, Andrew David. 2018. The Gorwaa noun: Toward a description of the Gorwaa language. London: SOAS University of London dissertation. DOI: 10.25501/SOAS.00030267.Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark. 1986. Ngoni Waray Amungal-yang: The Waray language from Adelaide River. Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis. DOI: 10.25911/5d7638b71997b.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 1–21. DOI: 10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. by Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin, 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110331127.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A grammar of Movima. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2066/41395.Google Scholar
Hualde, José, Ignacio, , and Ortiz, Jon Urbina, de (eds.) 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110895285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1964. A grammatical study of Beja. London: SOAS University of London dissertation.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Beja. The non-Semitic languages of Ethiopia, ed. by Bender, Lionel M., 97–132. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Hurd, Conrad, and Hurd, Phyllis. 1970. Nasioi verbs. Oceanic Linguistics 9(1). 37–78. DOI: 10.2307/3622931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, John P. 1981. The Kanuri language: A reference grammar. Madison: African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Jany, Carmen. 2014. Chimariko grammar: Areal and typological perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8309x2k0.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Elizabeth. 1989. Esquisse grammaticale du podoko. Descriptions des langues camerounaises, ed. by Barreteau, Daniel and Hedinger, Robert, 39–127. Paris: Agence de coopération culturelle et technique/Institut Français de Recherce Scientifique pour le Développement en Coopération.Google Scholar
Josephs, Lewis S. 1975. Palauan reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv9zcjvr.Google Scholar
Kahle, David, and Wickham, Hadley. 2013. ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5(1). 144–61. Online: https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2013/RJ-2013-014/index.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2014. Aspect and argument licensing in Neo-Aramaic. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9jw829fp.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21(2). 112–59. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalin, Laura, and van Urk, Coppe. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity: Agreement asymmetries in Neo-Aramaic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33. 659–702. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9262-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keegan, John M., and Djibrine, Mahamat Idriss. 2016. Bagirmi lexicon: Bagirmi-French, French-Bagirmi, with grammatical introduction in English. Cuenca: The Sara-Bagirmi Languages Project, Morkeg Books.Google Scholar
Keen, Sandra. 1983. Yukulta. Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 3, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Blake, Barry J., 190–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kifle, Nazareth Amlesom. 2007. Differential object marking and topicality in Tigrinya. Proceedings of the LFG '07 Conference, 5–25. Online: https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/12/papers/lfg07amlesom.pdf.Google Scholar
Kifle, Nazareth Amlesom. 2011. Tigrinya applicatives in lexical-functional grammar. Bergen: University of Bergen dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1956/5730.Google Scholar
Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2006. Applicatives in Salish languages. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University dissertation. Online: https://summit.sfu.ca/item/7018.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–37. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5.Google Scholar
Kroeker, Menno. 2001. A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara. International Journal of American Linguistics 67(1). 1–87. DOI: 10.1086/466446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, Aert H. 1967. The Squamish language: Grammar, texts, dictionary. (Janua linguarum, series practica 73.) The Hague: Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783111358024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachler, Jordan. 2006. A grammar of Laguna Keres. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico dissertation.Google Scholar
Landaburu, Jon. 1992. La langue ika ou arhuaco: Morphosyntaxe du noyau verbal de l'énoncé. Amerindia 17. 1–30.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–91. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164901.Google Scholar
Laughren, Mary. 1985. Warlpiri reflexives, ‘inherent’ reflexives and grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Lee, Jennifer R. 1983. Tiwi today: A study of language change in a contact situation. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/117122.Google Scholar
Leeding, Velma Joan. 1989. Anindilyakwa phonology and morphology. Camperdown: University of Sydney dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1558.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2002. Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8152.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 55–101. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Linn, Mary Sarah. 2001. A grammar of Euchee (Yuchi). Lawrence: University of Kansas dissertation.Google Scholar
Lowe, Ivan. 1999. Nambiquara. The Amazonian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 269–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Lorna. 1990. A grammar of Tauya. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110846027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Haspelmath, Martin; and Comrie, Bernard. 2010a. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 1–64. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Haspelmath, Martin; and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2010b. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8. 234–53.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, Graham Richard. 1975. Rembarnga: A language of central Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/11030.Google Scholar
Meira, Sérgio. 1999. A grammar of Tiriyó. Houston: Rice University dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1911/19417.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca C. 1983. Ngalakan grammar, texts and vocabulary. (Pacific linguistics B-89.) Canberra: Australian National University. Online: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/145172/1/PL-B89.pdf.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca C. 1989. Mangarayi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca C. 1994. A grammar of Wardaman: A language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110871371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirikitani, Leatrice T. 1972. Kapampangan syntax. (Oceanic Linguistics special publications 10.) Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20019139.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. Voice: Form and function, ed. by Fox, Barbara A. and Hopper, Paul J., 247–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/8116.001.0001.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10958.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2010. Ditransitives in Central Alaskan Yupik. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 529–62. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978a. Agreement. Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 331–74. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978b. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45. 233–79. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(78)90026-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2010. Ditransitive constructions and their alternatives in Teop. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 486–509. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and van, Hans Koot, de. 2008. Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11. 137–89. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and van, Hans Koot, de. 2010. Information-structural restrictions on Ā-scrambling. The Linguistic Review 27(3). 365–85. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2010.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefedov, Andrey, Malchukov, Andrej; and Vajda, Edward. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Ket. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 352–81. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 273–313. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure. Studies in Language 23(2). 331–76. DOI: 10.1075/sl.23.2.05nik.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39. 1–49. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2001.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110320640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). (Pacific linguistics C-140.) Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/145961.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Lorettta. 2007. Motion, transfer and transformation: The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, William J., and Oates, Lynette F.. 1968. Kapau pedagogical grammar. (Pacific linguistics C-10.) Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/146554.Google Scholar
Odria, Ane. 2014. Differential object marking and the nature of dative case in Basque dialects. Linguistic Variation 14(2). 289–317. DOI: 10.1075/lv.14.2.03odr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odria, Ane. 2019. DOM and datives in Basque: Not as homogeneous as they might seem. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 42(1). 7–30. DOI: 10.1075/li.00027.odr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mike. 1974. Barai syntax: A comparative study of tagmemic and transformational analyses. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University dissertation. Online: https://summit.sfu.ca/item/2959.Google Scholar
Olson, Mike. 1975. Barai grammar highlights. Studies in languages of Central and South-East Papua (Pacific linguistics C-29), ed. by Dutton, Thomas Edward, 471–512. Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/253948.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Canberra: Australian National University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/12476/.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2000. Transitivity and valency-changing derivations in Motuna: Case studies in transitivity. Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 115–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511627750.005.Google Scholar
Osada, Toshiki. 1992. A reference grammar of Mundari. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages, Cultures of Asia & Africa.Google Scholar
Overall, Simon E. 2007. A grammar of Aguaruna. Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation. Online: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/28174/.Google Scholar
Overfelt, Jason. 2022. Asymmetric symmetry in Tigrinya object marking. Angles of object agreement (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics), ed. by Nevins, Andrew, Peti-Stantic, Anita, de Vos, Mark, and Willer-Gold, Jana, 109–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192897749.003.0006.Google Scholar
Paparounas, Lefteris, and Salzmann, Martin. 2023a. First conjunct clitic doubling in Modern Greek: Evidence for Agree-based approaches to clitic doubling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 42. 323–82. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-023-09585-2.Google Scholar
Paparounas, Lefteris, and Salzmann, Martin. 2023b. First conjunct clitic doubling, the person case constraint, and first conjunct agreement: Insights from Modern Greek. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8(1). DOI: 10.16995/glossa.8417.Google Scholar
Peña, Jaime Germán. 2015. A grammar of Wampis. Eugene: University of Oregon dissertation. Online: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/19730.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Robert J. 2003. A grammar of Jingulu: An Aboriginal language of the Northern Territory. (Pacific linguistics 536.) Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/146163.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2003. Agreement and grammatical relations in Hyow. Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, ed. by Bradley, David, LaPolla, Randy, Michialovsky, Boyd, and Thurgood, Graham, 173–83. Canberra: Australian National University. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/146727.Google Scholar
Pharris, Nicholas J. 2006. Winuunsi tm talapaas: A grammar of the Molalla language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/68196.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priestley, Carol. 2019. Koromu (Kesawai): Grammar and information structure of a New Guinea language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501510953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reesink, Ger. 2013a. Expressing the GIVE event in Papuan languages: A preliminary survey. Linguistic Typology 17(2). 217–66. DOI: 10.1515/lity-2013-0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reesink, Ger. 2013b. Expressing the GIVE event in Papuan languages: A preliminary survey. Supplementary online materials. Linguistic Typology 17(2). DOI: 10.1515/lity-2013-0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, Verena. 1981. Bawm language and lore. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2008. Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. by Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9698-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, Richard. 1976. The morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa verb. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/157501.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Springer: Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1958. The Yurok language: Grammar, texts, lexicon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rojas Berscia, Luis Miguel. 2013. La sintaxis y semántica de las construcciones causativas en el chayahuita de Balsapuerto. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú BA thesis.Google Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2008. A typological overview of Emerillon, a Tupí-Guaraní language from French Guiana. Linguistic Typology 12(3). 431–60. DOI: 10.1515/LITY.2008.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1986. Topicality, transitivity, and the direct object in Nez Perce. International Journal of American Linguistics 52(2). 124–53. DOI: 10.1086/466009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2004. A grammar of Mosetén. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110915280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saksena, Anuradha. 1981. Verb agreement in Hindi. Linguistics 19. 467–74. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1981.19.5-6.467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saksena, Anuradha. 1985. Verb agreement in Hindi, part II: A critique of Comrie's analysis. Linguistics 23. 137–42. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1985.23.1.137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamanca, Danilo. 2008. El idioma miskito: Estado de la lengua y características tipológicas. Letras 43. 91–122. DOI: 10.15359/rl.1-43.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasama, Fumiko. 2001. A descriptive study of the Coast Tsimshian morphology. Kyoto: Kyoto University dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2433/150471.Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. (Studies in diversity linguistics.) Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.17169/langsci.b66.106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: A study of event categorisation in an Australian language. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen dissertation. Online: https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/147040.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2010. Grammatical properties and classification of three-participant predicates in Jaminjung. In Malchukov et al. 2010b, 510–28. DOI: 10.1515/9783110220377.510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelden, Howard. 1991. Galela pronominal verb prefixes. Papers in Papuan linguistics, no. 1 (Pacific linguistics A-73), ed. by Dutton, Tom, 161–75. Canberra: Australian National University. DOI: 10.15144/PL-A73.161.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shimelman, Aviva. 2017. A grammar of Yauyos Quechua. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.376355.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-3204-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Jane, and Bresnan, Joan. 1983. Control and obviation in Warlpiri. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1. 49–64. DOI: 10.1007/BF00210375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Ruth. 2006. Agreement in Mawng: Productive and lexicalised uses of agreement in an Australian language. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/39232.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2008. Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred, 67–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipőcz, Katalin. 2016. A manysi ditranzitív igék szintaxisa szemantikai megkö zelitésből. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 3. 49–61. DOI: 10.14232/JENY.2016.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Peter W., Moskal, Beata, Xu, Ting, Kang, Jungmin; and Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2019. Case and number suppletion in pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37. 1029–1101. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9425-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Dennis, Ellen. 2020. A grammar of Papapana: An Oceanic language of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific linguistics 659.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501509971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Katharine. 2008. Kwomtari grammar essentials. Kwomtari phonology and grammar essentials, ed. by Honsberger, Murray, Honsberger, Carol, and Tupper, Ian, 53–180. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG Academic Publications. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/23584.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Roland C. 1969. Bagirmi grammar. Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, University of Khartoum.Google Scholar
Terraza, Jimena. 2009. Grammaire du Wichi: Phonologie et morphosyntaxe. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal dissertation. Online: https://archipel.uqam.ca/1943/.Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110923964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C., and Thompson, M. Terry. 1980. Thompson Salish //-xi//. International Journal of American Linguistics 46. 27–32. DOI: 10.1086/465626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titov, Elena. 2019. Morphosyntactic encoding of information structure in Akan. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):27. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.576.Google Scholar
Titov, Elena. 2020. Optionality of movement. Syntax 23(4). 347–74. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana J. 2018. Predikacii s glagol'nym skazuemym. Elementy mokšanskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii, ed. by Toldova, Svetlana J. and Kholodilova, Maria A., 546–615. Moscow: Buki Vedi.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1998. Giving in Nawatl. The linguistics of giving, ed. by Newman, John, 35–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, René. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van der Voort, Hein. 2004. A grammar of Kwaza. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2022. A featural typology of Bantu agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198844280.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhove, Martine. 2019. Corpus-based cross-linguistic studies on prediction (CorTypo). ed. by Mettouchi, Amina, Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Chanard, Christian. Online: https://cortypo.huma-num.fr/resources.html, accessed 21 January 2020.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Susanna. 2012. Variation in three-participant constructions in Eastern Mansi. Linguistica Uralica 48. 120–30. DOI: 10.3176/lu.2012.2.04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Nagy, Beáta, and Szeverényi, Sándor. 2013. On the argument structure of the ‘give’ verbs in Nganasan and in Selkup. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology 1. 27–36. Online: https://ling.tspu.edu.ru/en/archive.html?year=0&issue=0&article_id=3969.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 1973. Clause patterns in Kham. Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal 1: General approach, ed. by Hale, Austin, 39–202. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/8549.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Doris. 2009. Phonologie et morphosyntaxe du maba. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 dissertation. Online: https://theses.hal.science/tel-01540280.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Carl R. 2006. A reference grammar of Menya, an Angan language of Papua New Guinea. Revised version of 2004 University of Manitoba dissertation. Online: https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/9799.Google Scholar
Willson, Stephen R. 1996. Verb agreement and case marking in Burushaski. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 40. 1–71. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol40.05.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 111–30. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2012. Object marking in isiZulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30(2). 219–35. DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2012.737600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2015. Argument prominence and agreement: Explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in Zulu. Lingua 156. 17–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zompì, Stanislao. 2019. Ergative is not inherent: Evidence from *ABA in suppletion and syncretism. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):73. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.816.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bárány supplementary material

Bárány supplementary material
Download Bárány supplementary material(File)
File 2.7 MB