Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:50:21.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2012

Mary Dalrymple  and
Irina Nikolaeva
Mary Dalrymple
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Irina Nikolaeva
Affiliation:
University of London
Get access

Summary

A summary 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.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Objects and Information Structure , pp. 223 - 239
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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.)

References

Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. Spatial, Temporal and Structural Uses of Urdu ko. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2006 Conference. Workshop on Case and Aspect in South Asian Languages.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, Y. 2003. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(4), 673–711. Also in Legendre et al. (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003a. Differential Coding, Partial Blocking, and Bidirectional OT. In: Nowak, Pawel, and Yoquelet, Corey (eds), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003b. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 2008. A Theory of Structure-Sharing: Focusing on Long-Distance Dependencies and Parasitic Gaps. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery III. 1982. The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. Pages 427–503 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery III. 1985. The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. Pages 132–223 of: Shopen, Tim (ed), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery III. 1996. Semantic Case-Stacking and Inside-Out Unification. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 16(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, R. E., and Kumari, T. C. 1997. Malayalam. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as Resource Management. Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University.
Asudeh, Ash. 2005. Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(4), 375–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2006. Direct Compositionality and the Architecture of LFG. Pages 363–387 of: Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2010. Towards a Unified Theory of Resumption. In: Rouveret, Alain (ed), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter, and Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Non-Configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 215–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárczi, Géza. 1980. A magyar nyelv múltja és jelene [The Past and Present of the Hungarian Language]. Budapest: Gondolat.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Approach. In: Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap, vol. 57. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Beames, John. 1872–1879. A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Reprinted in 1966.Google Scholar
Beaver, David, I., and Clark, Brady, Z. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, David. 2006. Control of Agreement in Multi-Object Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Pages 1–11 of: Fujimori, Atsushi, and Silva, Maria Amelia, Reis (eds), Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2007. Voice and Agreement in Multi-Object Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In: Memorias de IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2008. Sorting Out Grammatical Relations in Multi-Object Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. MS, University of Alberta.
Berman, Judith. 1999. Does German Satisfy the Subject Condition? In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1996. Object Shift and Specificity: Evidence from Ko-Phrases in Hindi. Pages 11–22 of: Papers from the Thirty-Second Regional Meeting of The Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the Scope of the Referential Hierarchy in the Typology of Grammatical Relations. Pages 191–210 of: Corbett, Greville, and Noonan, Michael (eds), Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Bisang, Walter, and Yādava, Yogendra, P. 1999. Face vs. Empathy: The Social Foundation of Maithili Verb Agreement. Linguistics, 37(3), 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry, J. 2001. Case. Second edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2002. Notes on Agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery, 1(1).Google Scholar
Bokamba, Eyamba, G. 1981. Aspects of Bantu Syntax. Unpublished manuscript, cited in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987).
Börjars, Kersti, and Vincent, Nigel. 2005. Position vs. Function in Scandinavian Presentational Constructions. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2005 Conference.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, and Vincent, Nigel. 2008. Objects and OBJ. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Chisarik, Erika, and Payne, John. 1999. On the Justification for Functional Categories in LFG. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference.Google Scholar
Bos, Johan, Mastenbroek, Elsbeth, McGlashan, Scott, Millies, Sebastian, and Pinkal, Manfred. 1994. A Compositional DRS-Based Formalism for NLP-Applications. In: International Workshop on Computational Semantics. Also published as Verbmobil Report 59, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objekt-markierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1989. Morphemic Marking of Topic and Focus. Pages 27–51 of: Kefer, Michel, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds), Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4: Universals of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond. Pages 143–167 of: Wanner, Dieter, and Kibbee, Douglas, A. (eds), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2004. Bardi Verb Morphology in Historical Perspective. Ph. D. thesis, Harvard University.
Bresnan, Joan. 1980. Polyadicity. Pages 97–121 of: Hoekstra, Teun, van der Hulst, Harry, and Moortgat, Michael (eds), Lexical Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Republished in revised form in Bresnan (1982).Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni, M. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(1), 1–50. Reprinted in Stowell et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam, A. 1987. Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa. Language, 63(4), 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 147–186.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie. 1990. Deep Unaccusativity in LFG. Pages 45–57 of: Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Farrell, Patrick, and Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel (eds), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Brown, Robert. 1988. Waris Case System and Verb Classification. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 19, 37–80.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1970. More on Definiteness Markers: Interrogatives in Persian. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(3), 359–363.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2007. Semantics, Intonation, and Information Structure. Pages 445–474 of: Ramchand, Gillian, and Reiss, Charles (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object Specificity and Agreement in Hindi/Urdu. Pages 89–103 of: Beals, K., et al. (eds), Papers from the Twenty-Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2008a. From Spatial Expression to Core Case Marker: Ergative and Dative/Accusative. MS, University of Konstanz.
Butt, Miriam. 2008b. Theories of Case. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and Ahmed, Tafseer. 2010. The Redevelopment of Indo-Aryan Case Systems from a Lexical Semantic Perspective. Morphology. in press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 1996. Structural Topic and Focus without Movement. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 1999. The Status of Case. Pages 153–198 of: Dayal, Veneeta, and Mahajan, Anoop (eds), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. Null Elements in Discourse Structure. In: Subbarao, K. V. (ed), Papers from the NULLS Seminar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2003. Case Systems: Beyond Structural Distinctions. Pages 53–87 of: Brandner, Ellen, and Zinsmeister, Heike (eds), New Perspectives on Case Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Niño, María-Eugenia, and Segond, Frédérique. 1996. Multilingual Processing of Auxiliaries in LFG. Pages 111–122 of: Gibbon, D. (ed), Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference. Mouton de Gruyter. Universität Bielefeld, 7–9 October 1996.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Grimm, Scott, and Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. Dative Subjects. Presented at NWO/DFG Workshop on Optimal Sentence Processing.
Carleton, Troi, and Waksler, Rachelle. 2000. Pronominal Markers in Zenzontepec Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics, 66(3), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, Troi, and Waksler, Rachelle. 2002. Marking Focus in Chatino. Word, 53(2), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çetinoğlu, Özlem, and Butt, Miriam. 2008. Turkish Non-Canonical Objects. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won. 1999. Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1996 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. Pages 506–569 of: Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Cambridge, MA: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Subjects and Direct Objects in Uralic Languages: A Functional Explanation of Case-Marking Systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes, 12, 5–17.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class. Linguistica Silesiana, III, 13–21.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Second edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. When Agreement Gets Trigger-Happy. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Phillipa, and Payne, John. 2006. Information Structure and Scope in German. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2006 Conference.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. Less-Travelled Paths from Pronoun to Agreement: The Case of the Uralic Objective Conjugations. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2010 Conference.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville, G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on Split Intransitivity and Fluid Intransitivity. Pages 139–168 of: Bonami, Olivier, and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 7. CSSP.Google Scholar
Croft, William, A. 1988. Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects. Pages 159–179 of: Barlow, Michael, and Ferguson, Charles, A. (eds), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William, A. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, A. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culy, Christopher, D. 1994. Extraposition in English and Grammatical Theory. MS, University of Iowa.
Culy, Christopher, D. 2000. An Incorporated Topic Marker in Takelma. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2000 Conference.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah. 2000. The Unaccusative Hypothesis and the Impersonal Construction in French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (In)dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the Postposition -rā in Persian. Pages 549–573 of: Stein, Dieter (ed), Cooperating with Written Texts: The Pragmatics and Comprehension of Written Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen, and Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Animacy in Grammar and Discourse. Pages 47–64 of: Fretheim, Thorstein, and Gundel, Jeanette, K. (eds), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlstrom, Amy. 2009. OBJθ without OBJ: A Typology of Meskwaki Objects. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2009 Conference.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary (ed). 1999. Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 34. New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2005. Nonsubject Agreement and Discourse Roles. Pages 73–94 of: Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics. University of Oxford: Centre for Linguistics and Philology.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald, M., Maxwell, III, John, T., and Zaenen, Annie (eds). 1995. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Lamping, John, Pereira, Fernando, C. N., and Saraswat, Vijay, A. 1997. Quantifiers, Anaphora, and Intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 6(3), 219–273. Reprinted in Dalrymple (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Lamping, John, Pereira, Fernando, C. N., and Saraswat, Vijay, A. 1999. Overview and Introduction. In: Dalrymple, Mary (ed), Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 2006. Caseless Nominals and the Projection of DP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24(4), 977–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. Bare Nominals: Non-Specific and Contrastive Readings under Scrambling. Pages 67–90 of: Karimi, Simin (ed), Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen. Reprinted by Garland Press, New York, 1996.
de Hoop, Helen. 2008. Against Affectedness. Pages 212–213 of: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages. University of Tartu and ECLA, Tartu.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds). 2009. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Lamers, Monique. 2006. Incremental Distinguishability of Subject and Object. Pages 269–287 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej. 2007. On Fluid Differential Case Marking: A Bidirectional OT Approach. Lingua, 117, 1636–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2005. Differential Case-Marking in Hindi. Pages 321–345 of: Amberber, Mengistu, and de Hoop, Helen (eds), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case For Case. London and Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case Markedness. Pages 249–267 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Deo, Ashwini. 2008. Datives: Locations and Possessors. Case Syncretism in Marathi Diachrony. Presented at SFB 471 Case Workshop University of Konstanz, May 8-10 2008.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert, M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2004. A Voice Opposition without Voice Morphology. Presented at AFLA 2004, Berlin.
Dowty, David, R. 1991. Thematic Proto Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew, S. 1986. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative. Language, 62(4), 808–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John, W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(4), 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet, and Vallduví, Enric. 1996. Information Packaging in HPSG. In: Grover, Claire, and Vallduví, Enric (eds), Studies in HPSG. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, vol. 12. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. Victoria. 2009. Differential Object Marking and Topicality: The Case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language, 33(4), 832–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Yehuda, N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda, N. 2006. Subjects and Universal Grammar: An Explanatory Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1995. Specificity and Scope. Pages 119–137 of: Nash, L., and Tsoulas, G. (eds), Actes du Premier Colloque Langues and Grammaire.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Information Structure: Notional Distinctions, Ways of Expression. Pages 123–136 of: van Sterkenburg, Piet (ed), Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The Noun Phrase Hierarchy and Relational Marking: Problems and Counterevidence. Linguistic Typology, 9, 77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, Daniel, L. 1997. Contrasting A-Dependencies in Selayarese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 677–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Anette, and Zaenen, Annie. 2002. Tense in LFG: Syntax and Morphology. In: Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe (eds), How We Say WHEN It Happens: Contributions to the Theory of Temporal Reference in Natural Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fry, John. 2001. Ellipsis and WA-Marking in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Gair, James, W., and Paolillo, John, C. 1997. Sinhala. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1994. A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Dolakha Newari Dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Africa and Asia.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1997. Object Relations and Dative Case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language, 21(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Mouton Grammar Library Series 40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1992. Another Look at Object Agreement. Pages 165–177 of: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS22). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2002. Specific Indefinites, Presupposition and Scope. In: Bäuerle, Rainer, Reyle, Uwe, and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (eds), Presuppositions in Discourse. Oxford: Elsevier. To appear.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua, 102, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement. Pages 57–98 of: Li, Charles (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983a. Introduction. Pages 1–42 of: Givón, Talmy (ed), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed). 1983b. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984a. Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case. Pages 151–182 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Objects: Towards A Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984b. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele, E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Golovko, Evgenij. 2009. Aleutskij jazyk v Rossijskoj Federacii (Struktura, funkcionirovanie, kontaktnye javlenija). [The Aleut Language in the Russian Federation: Structure, Functioning, Contact Phenomena.]. Ph.D. thesis, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg.
Greenberg, Joseph, H. 1977. Niger-Congo Noun Class Markers: Prefixes, Suffixes, Both or Neither. Studies in African Linguistics, supplement 7, 97–104.Google Scholar
Grimes, Barbara, F. 1999. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. SIL International.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, K. 1988. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 69, 274–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Mongolian. Pages 53–69 of: Schäfer, F. (ed), SinSpec: Working Papers of the FSB732 ‘Incremental Specification in Context’, vol. 1. Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2009. Differential Object Marking in (Khalkha-)Mongolian. Pages 115–129 of: Shibataki, R., and Vermeulen, R. (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 58.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra, A. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajičová, Eva, Partee, Barbara, H., and Sgall, Petr. 1998. Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice, and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A Usage-Based Account. Constructions, 2/2004.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Ditransitive Alignment Splits and Inverse Alignment. Functions of Language, 14(1), 79–102. Special issue on ditransitives, guest edited by Anna Siewierska.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Heine, Bernd. 2004. Grammaticalization. Pages 576–601 of: Joseph, Brian, D., and Janda, Richard, D. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Her, One-Soon. 1991. Topic as a Grammatical Function in Chinese. Lingua, 84(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, John, and Bubenik, Vit. 2006. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Honti, László. 1984. Chrestomathia Ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, J., and Thompson, Sandra, A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chu-Ren. 1989. Subcategorized TOPICs in Mandarin Chinese. MS, Academia Sinica.
Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-Called ‘Double Objects’ and Grammatical Relations. Language, 68(2), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2004. Topicality and Superiority in Bulgarian Wh-Questions. Pages 207–228 of: Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Rivero, Maria, Luisa, and Stojanovic, Danijela (eds), Proceedings of FASL-12: The Ottawa Meeting 2003.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, and Gerassimova, Veronica, A. 2002. Bulgarian Word Order and the Role of the Direct Object Clitic in LFG. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2002 Conference.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 2003. Learning Constraint Subhierarchies: The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm. Pages 251–298 of: Blutner, Reinhard, and Zeevat, Henk (eds), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jake, Janice, L. 1980. Object Verb Agreement in Tigre. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 10(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, and Carnie, Andrew. 2003. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle. Pages 265–296 of: Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Willie, Mary, Ann (eds), Formal Approaches To Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David, E., and Postal, Paul, M. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal Pragmatics. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald, M. 1987. Three Seductions of Computational Psycholinguistics. Pages 149–188 of: Whitelock, Peter, Wood, Mary McGee, Somers, Harold, L., Johnson, Rod, and Bennett, Paul (eds), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications. London: Academic Press. Also published as CCL/UMIST Report No. 86.2: Alvey/ICL Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications: Transcripts of Presentations and Discussions. Center for Computational Linguistics, University of Manchester. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995:337–367).Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald, M. 1988. Correspondences and their Inverses. Presented at the Titisee Workshop on Unification Formalisms: Syntax, Semantics and Implementation, Titisee, Germany.
Kaplan, Ronald, M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. Pages 173–281 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995:29–130).Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald, M., and Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-Distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty. Pages 17–42 of: Baltin, Mark, and Kroch, Anthony (eds), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago University Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995:137–165).Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, Specificity, and Discourse Functions: Râ in Persian. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 139–191.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of Subject. Pages 303–333 of: Li, C. N. (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kellogg, Samuel, Henry. 1893. A Grammar of the Hindi Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reprinted in 1955.Google Scholar
Kepping, Ksenia, B. 1979. Elements of Ergativity and Nominativity in Tangut. Pages 263–277 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Ergativity. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr, and Seleznev, A. 1980. Sintaksis in morfologija glagol'nogo soglasovanija v tabasaranskom jazyke [The Syntax and Morphology of Verbal Agreement in Tabassaran]. Pages 17–33 of: Zvegincev, Vladimir (ed), Tabasaranskie etjudy. Materialy dagestanskoj ekspedicii 1979 G. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar
Kifle, Nazareth, Amlesom. 2007. Differential Object Marking and Topicality in Tigrinya. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2007 Conference.Google Scholar
Kim, Alan. 1988. Preverbal Focus Position in Type XIII Languages. Pages 148–171 of: Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, and Wirth, Jessica (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
King, Tracy, Holloway. 1995. Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
King, Tracy, Holloway. 1997. Focus Domains and Information Structure. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference.Google Scholar
King, Tracy, Holloway, and Zaenen, Annie. 2004. F-Structures, Information Structure, and Discourse Structure. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), Online Proceedings of the LFG2004 Conference.Google Scholar
É.Kiss, Katalin Kiss, Katalin (ed). 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
É.Kiss, Katalin Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006a. Object-, Animacy- and Role-Based Strategies: A Typology of Object Marking. Studies in Language, 30, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006b. The Woman Showed the Baby to her Sister: On Resolving Humanness-Driven Ambiguity in Ditransitives. Pages 291–308 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2009. DOM and Two Types of DSM in Turkish. Pages 79–111 of: de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification. Pages 215–236 of: Barker, Chris, and Dowty, David (eds), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory: SALT II. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 40.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with Focus Phrases. Pages 105–136 of: Molnar, Valerie, and Winkler, Susanne (eds), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1991 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kulonen, Ulla-Maja. 1989. The Passive in Ob-Ugrian. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Kuznecova, Ariadna, Xelimskij, Evgenij, and Gruskina, Elena. 1982. Ocherki po sel'kupskomu jazyku [Studies in Selkup]. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar
Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential Function Marking, Case and Information Structure: Evidence from Korean. Language, 84(2), 218–257.Google Scholar
Lam, Olivia, S.-C. 2008. Object Functions and the Syntax of Double Object Constructions in Lexical Functional Grammar. D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the Status of SVO Sentences in French Discourse. Pages 217–261 of: Tomlin, Russell, S. (ed), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When Subjects Behave Like Objects: An Analysis of the Merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus Constructions Across Languages. Studies in Language, 24, 611–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud, and Polinsky, Maria. 1997. Typological Variation in Sentence Focus Constructions. Pages 189–206 of: Papers from the Thirty-Third Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1982. Le morphème râ en persan et les relations actancielles. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris, 73, 177–208.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1984. Actance Variations and Categories of the Object. Pages 269–292 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Objects: Towards A Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Vikner, Sten, and Grimshaw, Jane (eds). 2001. Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel. 2003. Specificity and Object Marking: The Case of Spanish a. Pages 67–101 of: von Heusinger, Klaus, and Kaiser, Georg A. (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Levin Lori, S. 1986. Operations on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Liao Gwen, W.-T. 2010. An LFG Account of Empty Pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford University.
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The Grammar of Accusative Case in Kannada. Language, 82(1), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Linking and Optimality in the Norwegian Presentational Focus Construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn J., and Trechsel, Frank R. 2008. Symmetrical Objects in Misantla Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics, 74(2), 227–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1992. The Specificity Condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 510–516.Google Scholar
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity Parameters and Transitivity Alternations: Constraining Co-Variation. Pages 330–357 of: Kulikov, L. I., Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency, and Transitivity: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, and Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview. Draft for the Conference on Ditransitive Constructions, November 2007.
Malchukov Andrej, L. 2008. Animacy and Asymmetries in Differential Case Marking. Lingua, 118, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie (eds). 1990. Modern Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 24. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marcantonio, Angela. 1985. On the Definite vs. Indefinite Conjugation in Hungarian: A Typological and Diachronic Analysis. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 35, 267–298.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin. 1982. Identified Object Marking in Hindi and Other Languages. Pages 16–50 of: Koul, O. N. (ed), Topics in Hindi Linguistics. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003a. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouron de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003b. Information Focus in Relational Clause Structure. Pages 175–194 of: Tsunoda, Tasaku, and Kageyama, Taro (eds), Voice and Grammatical Relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’. Studies in Japanese Linguistics. Stanford/Tokyo: CSLI Publications/Kuroiso Publishers. Revised and corrected version of 1992 Stanford University dissertation, On the Wordhood of Complex Predicates in Japanese.Google Scholar
Mayer, Elisabeth. 2008. Clitics on the Move: From Dependent Marking to Split Marking. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the Base Component of a Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language, 4, 243–269. Reprinted in McCawley (1973).Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1973. Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic and Semantic Topics. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi Grammar. Oxford/Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1998. Topicality and Agreement. Pages 203–219 of: Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 2001. Communicative Organization in Natural Language: The Semantic-Communicative Structure of Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivation. Language, 67, 510–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Grammatical Relations and Clause Structure in Malayalam. Pages 504–589 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Arguments in Hindi. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Reprinted version of 1990 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko. 2002. Prominence Mismatches and Differential Object Marking in Bantu. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2002 Conference.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yukiko. 2009. From Topic to Subject Marking: Implications for a Typology of Subject Marking. Pages 199–221 of: de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mycock, Louise. 2006. The Typology of Constituent Questions: A Lexical Functional Grammar Analysis of ‘Wh’-Questions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.
Mycock, Louise. 2009. “What Do You Do?”: Variation in Interrogative Predicates. Presented at the workshop “Blurring Component Boundaries: Levels of Analysis or Growth of Information?”, LFG09, Cambridge, July 2009.
Næss, Åshild. 2004. What Markedness Marks: The Markedness Problem with Direct Objects. Lingua, 114, 1186–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2006. Case Semantics and the Agent-Patient Opposition. Pages 309–327 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and van de Koot, Hans. 2008. Dutch Scrambling and the Nature of Discourse Templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 11(2), 137–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1982. Case Agreement in Russian. Pages 391–426 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar. Language, 62(1), 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Object Agreement, Grammatical Relations, and Information Structure. Studies in Language, 23, 331–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary Topic as a Relation in Information Structure. Linguistics, 39, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised version of 1997 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Robert. 2006. Information Structure in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Discourse-Prosody Correspondence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.
Paoli, Sandra. 2009. Contrastiveness and New Information: A New View on Focus. MS, University of Oxford.
Pápay, József. 1906–1908. Északi-osztják nyelvtanulmányok [Studies on Northern Ostyak]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 36–38, 345–398, 52–79, 164–195, 258–275, 111–150, 313–329.Google Scholar
Paul, Ludwig. 2003. Early Judaeo-Persian in a Historical Perspective: The Case of the Prepositions be, u, pa(d), and the Suffix rā. Pages 177–194 of: Paul, Ludwig (ed), Persian Origins: Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L., and Barshi, Immanuel. 1999. External Possession: What, How, and Why. Pages 3–29 of: Payne Doris, L., and Barshi, Immanuel (eds), External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed). 1995. Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1983. Existential Sentences in English, Swedish, German and Icelandic. Pages 80–100 of: Karlsson, Fred (ed), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1995. Double Objects in Causatives: Towards a Study of Coding Conflict. Studies in Language, 19, 129–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 1998. A Non-Syntactic Account of Some Asymmetries in the Double Object Construction. Pages 403–423 of: Koenig, Jean-Pierre (ed), Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, and Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-Distance Agreement and Topic in Tzez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(3), 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul, and Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1998. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Topic Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(2), 117–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul, and Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 2001. Specific Indefinites and the Information Structure Theory of Topics. Journal of Semantics, 18, 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation. Pages 249–264 of: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 1997. Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Shlomo. 1983. Tigre Grammar and Texts. Malibu: Undena Publications.Google Scholar
Rédei, Károly. 1965. Northern Ostyak Chrestomathy. The Hague, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen Sara, Thomas. 2001. The Interpretive Value of Object Splits. Language Sciences, 23, 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. Pages 281–337 of: Haegeman, Liliane (ed), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Pages 91–136 of: Kathol, Andreas, and Yoon, Jae-Hak (eds), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats, E.. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Rude, Noel. 1982. Promotion and Topicality of Nez Perce Objects. Pages 463–483 of: Macaulay, Monica, Gensler Orin, D., Brugman, Claudia, Civkulis, Inese, Dahlstrom, Amy, Krile, Katherine, and Sturm, Rob (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Rude, Noel. 1986. Topicality, Transitivity, and the Direct Object in Nez Perce. International Journal of American Linguistics, 52(2), 124–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeed, John, I. 1984. The Syntax of Topic and Focus in Somali. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Saeed, John, I. 1987. Somali Reference Grammar. Wheaton, MD: Dunwoody.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, A., Wasow, Thomas, and Bender, Emily. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. 1984. The Pragmatics of Noun Incorporation in Eastern Cushitic Languages. Pages 243–268 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Objects: Towards A Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schulz, B. 2005. Tune in – Drop Out: Harmonic Alignment as a Prerequisite for German Topic Drop. Cited by Erteschik-Shir (2007:24).
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1997. Why Some Foci Must Associate. MS, Rutgers University.
Seidl, Amanda, and Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1997. The Discourse Function of Object Marking in Swahili. Pages 373–387 of: Papers from the Thirty-Third Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. Pages 112–171 of: Dixon, R. M. W. (ed), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Mona. 1994. Thematic Roles, Word Order, and Definiteness. Pages 217–235 of: Butt, Miriam, King Tracy, Holloway, and Ramchand, Gillian (eds), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena. 2001. Pragmatic Structuring in Northern Mansi. Pages 222–239 of: Seilenthal, Tönu (ed), Congressus nonus internationalis fenno-ugristarum. 7.- 13.8.2000 Tartu. Pars IV. Dissertationes sectionum: Linguistica III. Tartu: Tartu University.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark, J. 2001. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim, Wehrli, Eric, and Anderson, Stephen, R. (eds). 1992. Syntax and the Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 26. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964. Identifying Reference and Truth-Values. Pages 86–99 of: Steinberg, Danny, D., and Jakobovitz, Leon, A. (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1974. Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory, T., and Yadav, Ramawatar. 1988. Maithili Verb Agreement and the Control Agreement Principle. Pages 304–321 of: Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory, vol. 24.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The Semantics of Topic-Focus Articulation. Pages 513–540 of: Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo, and Stokhof, Martin (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ja. 1979. Nganasanskij jazyk [The Nganasan Language]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Toldova, Svetlana, and Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Uralic Languages: A Multiparameter Analysis. Presented at Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages, University of Tartu, Estonia, May 29–June 1, 2008.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric, and Engdahl, Elisabet. 1996. The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging. Linguistics, 34, 459–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert, D. 2003. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1997. LFG as a Model of Syntactic Change. Pages 1–42 of: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), Time Over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics, 19, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2008. Verbal Semantics and the Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. The Case of the Direct Object in Turkish: Semantics, Syntax and Morphology. Turkic Languages, 3, 3–44.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. Structured Propositions. Report of the Konstanz SFB.
Windfuhr, Gernot. 1979. Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. Trends in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. Animacy Hierarchy Effects on Object Agreement. Pages 203–216 of: Kotey, Paul (ed), New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages (Trends in African Linguistics 3). Trenton: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2000. Object Agreement in Palauan: Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality. Pages 215–245 of: Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa (eds), Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Conditions on Object Agreement in Ruwund (Bantu). Pages 177–201 of: Benedicto, E. (ed), The UMass Volume on Indigenous Languages (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Xelimskij, Evgenij, A. 1982. Drevnejshie vengersko-samodijskie jazykovye paralleli [Ancient Linguistic Parallels between Hungarian and Samoyed]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Ning, and van Bergen, Geertje. 2007. Scrambled Objects and Case Marking in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua, 117, 1617–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan, and Thráinsson, H. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(4), 441–483. Reprinted in Maling and Zaenen (1990:95–164).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2009. Uncharted Territory? Towards a Non-Cartographic Account of Germanic Syntax. Pages 59–84 of: Alexiadou, Artemis, Hankamer, Jorge, McFadden, Thomas, Nuger, Justing, and Schäfer, Florian (eds), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Mary Dalrymple, University of Oxford, Irina Nikolaeva, University of London
  • Book: Objects and Information Structure
  • Online publication: 05 October 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Mary Dalrymple, University of Oxford, Irina Nikolaeva, University of London
  • Book: Objects and Information Structure
  • Online publication: 05 October 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Mary Dalrymple, University of Oxford, Irina Nikolaeva, University of London
  • Book: Objects and Information Structure
  • Online publication: 05 October 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511993473.013
Available formats
×