Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- 24 Frequency and Corpora
- 25 Morphology in Typology
- 26 Morphological Change
- 27 Morphology and Language Acquisition
- 28 Experimental Studies of Morphology and Morphological Processing
- 29 Computational Morphology
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
25 - Morphology in Typology
from Part VI - Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- 24 Frequency and Corpora
- 25 Morphology in Typology
- 26 Morphological Change
- 27 Morphology and Language Acquisition
- 28 Experimental Studies of Morphology and Morphological Processing
- 29 Computational Morphology
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 710 - 742Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto; Don, Jan, and Pfau, Roland (eds.) 2010. Parts of Speech: Empirical and Theoretical Advances. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkad’ev, P. M.; Lander, J. A., Letuchij, A. B., Sumbatova, N. R., and Testelec, J. G.. 2009. Vvedenie: Osnovnye svedenija ob adygejskom jazyke. In Arkad’ev, P. M., Lander, J. A., Letuchij, A. B., Sumbatova, N. R., and Testelec, J. G. (eds.), Aspekty polisintetizma: Ocherki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka, 17–120. Moscow: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science 332, 346–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, David. 2013. Unidirectional flexibility and the noun-verb distinction in Lushootseed. In Rijkhoff, Jan, and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 185–220. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, Anna. 2015. Reexamining the Linguistic Prehistory of Aleut. Paper presented at N-TAG XV, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11, 239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2013. Distributional biases in language families. In Bickel, et al. (eds.), Linguistic Typology and Historical Contingency, 415–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, Tim (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3, 169–240. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Malchukov, Andrej L. and Richards, Marc (eds.), Scales, 1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar; Hildebrandt, Kristine A., and Schiering, René. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Bariş (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, 47–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar; Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2014. Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38.3, 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Frans. 1911. Introduction: Handbook of American Indian Languages, vol. 1, 1–83. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 20–47. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina; Malchukov, Andrej L., and Richards, Marc D. (eds.) 2015. Scales and Hierarchies: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.) 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Gilman, Albert. 1972. The pronouns of solidarity and power. In Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed.), Language and Social Context, 252–82. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2004. The Russian adjective: A pervasive yet elusive category. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology, 199–222. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83.1, 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2010. Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure, 3.2. 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013a. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 48–65. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013b. The unique challenge of the Archi paradigm. In Cathcart, Chundra, Kang, Shinae, and Sandy, Clare S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus, 52–67. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91.1, 145–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on So-called “Conjunct/Disjunct” Systems. Paper presented in Syntax Of The World’s Languages III. Berlin.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. 1997. A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An Indigenous Language of Southwestern Colombia. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy J. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40, 611–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, J. Peter. 1989. The nature of polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo. In Gerdts, Donna B. and Michelson, Karin (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages, 230–58. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24, 379–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) 2002. Word: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2008. Complex predicate and bipartite stems in Skou. Studies in Language 32, 279–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Wichmann, Søren (eds.) 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, http://wals.info (accessed May 1, 2016).Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Osada, Toshiki. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9, 351–90.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon; Norcliffe, Elisabeth, and Roque, Lila San (eds.) 2016. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Presentation at LFG 3 Conference, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. Forthcoming. The Epidemiology of Language: The Evolution of Word Class Categorialization in the Austronesian Languages.Google Scholar
Foley, William A., and Nichols, Johanna. In preparation. Rigid, flexible, precategorical: A wordlist-based part-of-speech typology.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2013. Polysynthesis in the Subarctic: How recent is it? In Bickel, Balthasar, Grenoble, Lenore, Peterson, David A., and Timberlake, Alan (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, 241–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. In press. What are the limits of polysynthesis? In Nicholas Evans, Marianne Mithun, and Michael Fortescue (eds.), Polysynthesis, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1990. Hittite enclitic subjects and transitive verbs. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42.2, 227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, David. 2013. Riau Indonesian: A language without nouns and verbs. In Rijkhoff, Jan, and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 89–130. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeffrey C. (ed.) 2008. Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of language with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Trail, Ron (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics, no. 7, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 43–66.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45.1, 31–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1 < > 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64.2, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2003. Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Lenz, Friedrich (ed.), Deictic Conceptualization of Space, Time, and Person, 185–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2013. Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/45 (accessed May 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees; Rijkhoff, Jan, and Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Parts-of-speech systems and word order. Journal of Linguistics 40, 527–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2007. Prosodic and grammatical domains in Limbu. Himalayan Linguistics 8, 1–34.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1991. The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Universität zu Köln. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2008. Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics 46, 309–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In Efrat, Barbara (ed.), The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, 83–153. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha. 2002. On the chronology of the Ainu ethnic complex. Bulletin of the Hokkaido Museum of Northern Peoples 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2, 36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juola, Patrick. 2008. Assessing linguistic complexity. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 89–108. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of “Noun” and “Verb.” Lingua 60, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Leipzig Valence Classes Project. n.d. Available online at www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/valency/index.php (accessed April 12, 2016)Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle, and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 23–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.) 2007. New Challenges in Typology. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti; Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.) 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Wick R. 1965. Acoma Grammar and Texts. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike, and Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavia University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Preston, Laurel B. (eds.) 2014. Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 110–25. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Forerunners to globalization: The Eurasian steppe and its periphery. In Hasselblatt, Cornelius, Houtzagers, Peter, and van Pareren, Remco (eds.), Language Contact in Times of Globalization, 177–95. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2013a. The origin and evolution of case-suppletive pronouns: Eurasian evidence. In Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, 313–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2013b. The vertical archipelago: Adding the third dimension to linguistic geography. In Auer, Peter, Hilpert, Martin, Stukenbrock, Anja, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds.), Space in Language and Linguistics, 38–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2016. Verb-based and noun-based languages. Presentation at Societas Linguistica Europaea annual meeting, Naples.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. In press. Polysynthesis and head marking. In Nicholas Evans, Marianne Mithun, and Michael Fortescue (eds.), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Nichols, Lynn. 2007. Lexical derivational properties resist diffusion. Workshop on Language Contact and Morphosyntactic Variation and Change, ALT 7, Paris.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, and Peterson, David A.. 2013. M-T pronouns: N-M pronouns. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/136 (accessed May 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkiz, and Pöchtrager, Markus A. (eds.) 2011. Pazar Laz. LW/Materials. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2014. Paradigm copying in Tungusic: The Lamunkhin dialect of Èven. In Robbeets, Martine and Bisang, Walter (eds.), Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond, 287–310. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2011. A Grammar of Kharia: A South Munda Language. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 2013. Parts of speech in Kharia: A formal account. In Rijkhoff, Jan and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 131–68. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.) 2011. The vanishing phonemes debate, apropos of Atkinson 2011. Linguistic Typology 15.2, 147–332.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2011. Principles of affix ordering: An overview. Word Structure 4.2, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan, and van Lier, Eva (eds.) 2013. Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise 2009. A hierarchical indexation system: The example of Emerillon (Teko). In Epps, Patience and Arkhipov, Alexandre (eds.), New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, 63–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey; Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.) 2009. Linguistic Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka Texts: Tales and Ethnological Narratives with Grammatical Notes and Lexical Materials. Philadelphia: LSA and University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1946. American Indian grammatical categories. Word 2, 103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René. 2009. Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in prosodic typology. Presented at 8th Biannual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Schiering, Rene; Bickel, Balthasar, and Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46, 657–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2012. The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact: Evidence from morphological borrowing in Resígaro (Arawakan). Diachronica 29.4, 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2013. AfBo: A worldwide survey of affix borrowing. Available online at http://afbo.info (accessed April 6, 2015).Google Scholar
Shosted, Ryan K. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Person marking. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 322–45. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna, and Bakker, Dik. 2013. Suppletion in person forms: The role of iconicity and frequency. In Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, 347–95. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–71. Canberra and Atlantic Highlands: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2011. Language Universals and Linguistic Complexity: Three Case Studies in Core Argument Marking. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2009. Complexity in core argument marking and population size. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Linguistic Complexity as an Evolving Vvariable, 126–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. Global optimization and complexity tradeoffs. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50.2, 179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew, and Luís, Ana. 2013. The canonical clitic. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 123–50. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol, and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) 2005. Handbook of Word Formation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory, and Finkel, Raphael A.. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Janhunen, Juha (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, 154–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tchekhoff, Claude. 1984. Une langue sans opposition verbo-nominale: Le Tongien. Modèles linguistiques 6, 125–32.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C., and Thompson, M. Terry. 1992. The Thompson Language. Missoula: University of Montana.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C., and Thompson, M. Terry. 1996. Thompson River Salish Dictionary. Missoula: University of Montana.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Structure and Complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward, and Nichols, Johanna (co-organizers); Anderson, Gregory D. S., Aronoff, Mark, Hyman, Larry M., Rhodes, Richard, and Rice, Keren. 2012. The diachronic stability of complex templatic morphology. Organized symposium, LSA Annual Meeting, Portland.Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik, and Zúñiga, Fernando (eds.) 2014. Wordhood: Theory and typology from an Americanist perspective. Morphology 24.3, special issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2010. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena; Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando, and Bickel, Balthasar. 2016. Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement. Linguistics. Published online. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2016-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfart, H. C., and Carroll, J. F.. 1981. Meet Cree: A Guide to the Cree Language, 2nd edn. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2007. From the typology of inversion to the typology of alignment. In Miestamo, Matti and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), New Challenges in Typology, 199–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment: Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by