Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T10:39:47.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to investigate linguistic diversity: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Henry Davis ,
Carrie Gillon  and
Lisa Matthewson
Henry Davis*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Carrie Gillon*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Lisa Matthewson*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
[henry.davis@ubc.ca]
[carrie.gillon@asu.edu]
[lisa.matthewson@ubc.ca]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

fieldworkmethodologysyntaxsemanticsSalishWakashanTsimshianic

Information

Type
Perspectives
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. e180 - e226
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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

Abbott, Barbara. 1999. Support for a unique theory of definiteness. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 9. 1–15. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/292.10.3765/salt.v9i0.2834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian Μ.; and Lieven, Elena V. Μ.. 2014. Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn't help. Language 90. 3.e53–e90.10.1353/lan.2014.0051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika; and Partee, Barbara. 1995. Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark, and McCloskey, James. 2007. On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax. Linguistic Typology 11. 285–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 4. 614–33.10.1162/ling_a_00108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, David. 2000. Grammatical convergence and the genesis of diversity in the Northwest Coast sprachbund. Anthropological Linguistics 42. 2. 1–67.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2002. The typology of parts of speech systems: The markedness of adjectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz (ed.) 1911. Handbook of American Indian languages, vol. 1. (Bureau of American Ethnology, bulletin 40.) Washington, DC: Government Print Office.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1947. Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 37. 203–377.10.2307/1005538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230590168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90. 2. 342–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BÜring, Daniel. 2005. Bound to bind. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 2. 259–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, Strang, and Davis, Henry. 1996. Stative aspect and possession in Salish. International Conference on Salish and Neighbo(u)ring Languages (ICSNL) 31. 13–22. Online: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/icsnl/1996.Google Scholar
Burton, Strang, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2015. Targeted construction storyboards in semantic fieldwork. Semantic fieldwork methodology, ed. by Bochnak, Ryan and Matthewson, Lisa. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2012. Future, potential, conditionals, and decessive in Tlingit: A report on the empirical findings from recent field research. Future, potential, conditionals, and decessive in Tlingit: A report on the empirical findings from recent field research: University of Amherst, ms. Online: http://people.umass.edu/scable/papers/Tlingit-Modal&Conditional&Decessive.pdf.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2012a. Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 38. 1–56.10.1515/tl-2012-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2012b. Reply to the commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics 38. 137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2007. A note on linguistic theory and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie, and Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. On standardising syntactic elicitation techniques (part 1). Lingua 115. 939–57.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and McKee, Cecile. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 15. 94–110.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2005. Word classes, parts of speech and syntactic argumentation (Commentary on ‘Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes’, by Nicholas Evans and Toshiki Osada). Linguistic Typology 9. 431–41.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. Syntax is more diverse, and evolutionary linguistics is already here (Commentary on Evans & Levinson 2009). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 453–54.10.1017/S0140525X09990653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2013. Radical construction grammar. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. by Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, 211–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, and van Lier, Eva. 2012. Language universals without universal categories. Theoretical Linguistics 38. 57–72.10.1515/tl-2012-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2003. Mind the gap: Plural agreement and A’-extraction in St’át'imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL) (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 11) 38. 23–46. Online: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/icsnl/2003.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2009. Cross-linguistic variation in anaphoric dependencies: Evidence from the Pacific Northwest. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 1–43.10.1007/s11049-008-9062-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2010a. A teaching grammar of Upper St’át'imcets. A teaching grammar of Upper St’át'imcets: University of British Columbia, ms.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2010b. Salish lacks generalized quantifiers after all! Paper presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2011. Stalking the adjective in St’át'imcets. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 5. 1–60.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2012. Two types of ‘headless relative’ in languages of the Northwest Coast: A case study in elicitation techniques. Paper presented at Amazonicas 4, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2013. All about all in (some) Salish languages. Strategies of quantification, ed. by Gil, Kook-Hee, Harlow, Stephen, and Tsoulas, George, 214–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, Lai, Sandra; and Matthewson, Lisa. 1997. Cedar roots and singing detectives: Attributive modification in Salish and English. International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 27. 291–316. Online: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/icsnl/1992.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, and Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the functional determination of lexical categories. Revue Québecoise de Linguistique 27. 29–69.10.7202/603175arCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Henry, Matthewson, Lisa; and Rullmann, Hotze. 2009. Out of control marking as circumstantial modality in St’át'imcets. Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. by Hogeweg, Lotte, de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej, 206–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, Waldie, Ryan; and Wojdak, Rachel. 2007. Condition C in Nuu-chah-nulth. Canadian Journal of Linguistics (Special issue on Southern Wakashan languages) 52. 185–222.Google Scholar
Davis, Philip, and Saunders, Ross. 1997. A grammar of Bella Coola. (Occasional papers in linguistics 13.) Missoula: University of Montana.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida, and Matthewson, Lisa. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25. 79–93.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, Bernstein, Judy, Tortora, Christina; and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2007. Data and grammar: Means and individuals. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 335–52.10.1515/TL.2007.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2011a. Definite articles. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 37. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/37.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2011b. Indefinite articles. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 38. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/38.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew, and Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online: http://wals.info/.Google Scholar
Edelman, Shimon, and Christiansen, Morten. 2003. How seriously should we take minimalist syntax? A comment on Lasnik. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 59–60.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00045-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etxeberria, Urtzi, and Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2013. D-heads, domain restriction, and variation: From Greek and Basque to Salish. The nominal structure in Slavic and be-yond, ed. by Schürcks, Lilia, Etxeberria, Urtzi, and Giannakidou, Anastasia, 413–40. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 337–62.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–48.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–46.10.1086/431525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2007. Carrots—perfect as vegetables, but please not as a main dish. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 353–67.10.1515/TL.2007.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2007. Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 269–318.10.1515/TL.2007.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2009. Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28. 1. 127–32.10.1515/ZFSW.2009.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. The Linguistic Review 22. 365–80.10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, Clarissa. 2012. Gitxsan adjectives: Evidence from nominal modification. International Conference on Salish and Neighbo(u)ring Languages (ICSNL) (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 32) 47. 49–68. Online: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/icsnl/2012.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1997 [1892]. On sense and reference. Readings in the philosophy of language, ed. by Ludlow, Peter, 563–83. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, and Fedorenko, Evelina. 2010. Weak quantitative standards in linguistics research. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14. 233–34.10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward, and Fedorenko, Evelina. 2013. The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 1–2.88-124.10.1080/01690965.2010.515080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steve; and Fedorenko, Evelina. 2013. Quantitative methods in syntax/semantics research: A response to Sprouse and Almeida (2013). Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 3. 229–40.10.1080/01690965.2012.704385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2009a. Deixis in S@@underline@@k@@/underline@@w@@underline@@x@@/underline@@wú7mesh. International Journal of American Linguistics 75. 1–27.10.1086/598201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2009b. The semantic core of determiners: Evidence from S@@underline@@k@@/underline@@w@@underline@@x@@/underline@@wú7mesh. Determiners: Variation and universals, ed. by Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina, 177–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.147.06gilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2013. The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in S@@underline@@k@@/underline@@w@@underline@@x@@/underline@@wú7mesh. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 2007. Empirical evidence and theoretical reasoning in generative grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 369–80.10.1515/TL.2007.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 1. 69–101.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1981. Le comox lhaamen de Colombie Britannique: Présentation d'une langue amerindienne. Paris: Association d'ethnolinguistique amérindienne.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2007. As a matter of facts—comments on Featherston's sticks and carrots. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 381–94.10.1515/TL.2007.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1973. A note on subject-object inversion in Navajo. Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. by Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina, and Saporta, Sol, 300–309. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. David. 2007. When languages die: The extinction of the worlds languages and the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181920.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 3. 663–87.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2012. Escaping ethnocentrism in the study of word-class universals. Theoretical Linguistics 38. 91–102.10.1515/tl-2012-0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. Comparative syntax. The Routledge handbook of syntax, ed. by Carnie, Andrew, Sato, Yosuke, and Siddiqi, Dan, 490–508. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27. 405–42.10.1017/S0022226700012731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1988.].Google Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2006. Field semantics and grammar-writing: Stimuli-based techniques and the study of locative verbs. Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, ed. by Ameka, Felix, Dench, Alan, and Evans, Nicholas, 321–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. In Bach, et al., 487–540.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, and Demers, Richard. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70. 4. 697–736.10.2307/416325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 273–324.10.1007/BF00627710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 1992. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Paperno, Denis. 2011. Handbook of quantifiers in natural language. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 90.) Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kinkade, Μ. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. Lingua 60. 25–39.10.1016/0024-3841(83)90045-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Michelson, Karin. 2015. Invariance in argument realization: The case of Iroquoian. Language 91. 1. to appear.10.1353/lan.2015.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, ed. by Eikmeyer, Hans-Jurgen and Rieser, Hannes, 38–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 639–50. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren't determiners. The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, ed. by Turner, Ken, 257–91. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2011. Varieties of semantic evidence. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. by Maienborn, Claudia, Heusinger, Klaus von, and Portner, Paul, 242–67. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul. 1989. Review of Hagège 1981. International Journal of American Linguistics 55. 106–16.Google Scholar
Kuipers, Aert. 1967. The Squamish language: Grammar, texts, dictionary. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111358024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27. 107–61.10.1017/S0022226700012433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen, and Evans, Nicholas. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on ‘The myth of language universals’. Lingua 120. 2733–58.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lyon, John. 2011. The semantics of determiner phrases in Okanagan. International Conference on Salish and Neighbo(u)ring Languages (ICSNL) (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 30) 46. 194–266. Online: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/icsnl/2011.Google Scholar
Lyon, John. 2013. Predication and equation in Okanagan Salish: The syntax and semantics of determiner phrases. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7. 79–134.10.1023/A:1008376601708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70. 369–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2008. Quantification: A cross-linguistic perspective. (North-Holland linguistic series: Linguistic variations 64.) East Sussex: Emerald.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2012. A fieldworker's guide to the semantics of noun phrases. Paper presented at Amazonicas 4, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013a. Gitksan modals. International Journal of American Linguistics 79. 349–94.10.1086/670751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013b. On how (not) to uncover cross-linguistic variation. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 42. 323–42.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, and Davis, Henry. 1995. The structure of DP in St’át'imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 30. 55–68. Online: http://lingserver.arts.ubc.ca/linguistics/icsnl/1995.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Davis, Henry; and Rullmann, Hotze. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át'imcets. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 201–54.10.1075/livy.7.07matCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattina, Anthony. 1973. Colville grammatical structures. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i dissertation.Google Scholar
Mattina, Anthony, and DeSautel, Martina. 2002. Dorna Noyes DeSautel ła? kicaptíkwł. (Occasional papers in linguistics 16.) Missoula: University of Montana.Google Scholar
Mattina, Nancy. 1996. Aspect and category in Okanagan word formation. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University dissertation.Google Scholar
Mattina, Nancy. 2006. Determiner phrases in Moses-Columbia Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 72. 97–134.10.1086/505280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. Approaches to natural language, ed. by Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, Julius, and Suppes, Patrick, 221–42. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Montler, Timothy. 2003. Auxiliaries and other categories in Straits Salishan. International Journal of American Linguistics 69. 103–34.10.1086/379680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naish, Constance. 1979. A syntactic study of Tlingit. (Language data, Amerindian series 6.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nater, Henk. 1984. The Bella Coola language. (Mercury series, Canadian Ethnology Service 92.) Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
Nauze, Fabrice. 2008. Modality in typological perspective. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, Pesetsky, David; and Rodrigues, Cilene. 2009. Pirahā exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85. 2. 355–404.10.1353/lan.0.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Fritz. 2010. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86. 3. 688–95.10.1353/lan.2010.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 2001. Mood and modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1988. Many quantifiers. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 5. 383–402.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1990. Domains of quantification and semantic typology. Proceedings of the 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by Ingemann, Frances, 3–39. Lawrence: Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2010. Should we impeach armchair linguists? Japanese/Korean linguistics 17, ed. by Iwasaki, Shoichi, Hoji, Hajime, Clancy, Patricia, and Sohn, Sung-Ock, 49–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Linguistic typology and formal grammar. The Oxford handbook of typology, ed. by Sung, Jae Jung, 650–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, and Kluender, Robert. 2006. Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead. Linguistic Typology 11. 273–83.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. On the inferencing of indefinite-this NPs. Elements of discourse understanding, ed. by Joshi, Aravind, Webber, Bonnie, and Sag, Ivan, 231–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, ed. by Mann, William and Thompson, Sandra, 295–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.16.12priCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 2010. The truth about English grammar: Rarely pure and never simple. A new look at language teaching & testing: English as subject & vehicle, ed. by Kao, Tienen and Lin, Yao-fu, 16–39. Taipei: The Language Training Testing Center.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Reference-set computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3846.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis Silva, Μ. Amélia. 2009. Circumstantial modality in Blackfoot. Paper presented at Chronos 9, Université Paris-Diderot.Google Scholar
Rigsby, Bruce. 1986. Gitksan grammar. Gitksan grammar: University of Queensland, ms.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 287–350.10.1023/A:1024157132393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, Matthewson, Lisa; and Davis, Henry. 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16. 317–57.10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1998 [1905]. On denoting. Definite descriptions: A reader, ed. by Ostertag, Gary, 35–49. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth. 2004. The grammar of (in)dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6595.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandalo, Filomena. 1997. A grammar of Kadiwéu: With special reference to the polysynthesis parameter. (MIT occasional papers in linguistics 11.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1911. Some aspects of Nootka language and culture. American Anthropologist 13. 15–28.10.1525/aa.1911.13.1.02a00030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scha, Remko. 1981. Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. Formal methods in the study of language (Mathematical centre tracts 136), ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo, and Stokhof, Martin, 483–512. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2005. Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, ed. by Kepser, Stephan and Reis, Marga, 457–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2009. Web searches should supplement judgements, not supplant them. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28. 1. 151–56.10.1515/ZFSW.2009.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2011. Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2. 206–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Sprouse, Jon, and Almeida, Diogo. 2012a. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger's Core syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48. 3. 609–52.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, and Almeida, Diogo. 2012b. Power in acceptability judgment experiments and the reliability of data in syntax. Power in acceptability judgment experiments and the reliability of data in syntax: New York University, Abu Dhabi, ms.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, and Almeida, Diogo. 2013. The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 3. 222–28.10.1080/01690965.2012.703782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Schütze;, Carson T. and Almeida, Diogo. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010. Lingua 134. 219–48.10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Story, Gillian. 1979. A morphological study of Tlingit. (Language data, Amerindian series 7.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1933. A visit to the other world: A Nitinat text (with translation and grammatical analysis). International Journal of American Linguistics 7. 195–208.10.1086/463803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1948. A structural trend in Nootka. Word 4. 106–19.10.1080/00437956.1948.11659333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1953. A problem of remote common origin. International Journal of American Linguistics 19. 26–44.10.1086/464188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, John. 1911. Tlingit. In Boas 1911, 159–204.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2011. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 2009. If language is a jungle, why are we all cultivating the same plot? (Commentary on Evans & Levinson 2009). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 469–70.10.1017/S0140525X09990598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testelets, Yakov. 2007. Vertical ellipsis in Tsakhur and Adyghe. Paper presented at the Conference on Languages of the Caucasus, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C., and Dale Kinkade, Μ.. 1990. Languages. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7: Northwest coast, ed. by Suttles, Wayne, 30–51. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, and Ammann, Andreas. 2011. Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In Dryer & Haspelmath, Ch. 76. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/76.Google Scholar
van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
van Eijk, Jan, and Hess, Thom. 1986. Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua 69. 319–31.10.1016/0024-3841(86)90061-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eijk, Jan, and Williams, Lorna. 1981. Cuystwí Malh Ucwalmícwts: Lillooet legends and stories. Mount Currie: Ts'zil.Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva. 2012. Reconstructing multifunctionality. Theoretical Linguistics 38. 119–35.10.1515/tl-2012-0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Klok, Jozina. 2012. Tense, aspect, and modal markers in Paciran Javanese. Montreal: McGill University dissertation.Google Scholar
Vander Klok, Jozina. 2013. Restrictions on semantic variation: A case study on modal system types. Paper presented at the Workshop on Semantic Variation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, and Arnold, Jennifer. 2005. Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua 115. 1481–96.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Honoré. 2003. A morphological description of Sliammon, Mainland Comox Salish. Osaka: Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publications.Google Scholar
Weskott, Thomas, and Fanselow, Gisbert. 2008. Scaling issues in the measurement of linguistic acceptability. The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 1: Process, ed. by Featherston, Sam and Winkler, Susanne, 229–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2001. An argument for category neutrality? West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20. 621–34.Google Scholar