Article published in:
Argument Realization in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 3] 2016
► pp. 137198
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Ronko, Roman V.
2017. Nominative Object in Modern North Russian Dialects. SSRN Electronic Journal Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2012The essence of mirativity, Linguistic Typology 16: 435–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith
2003Differential object narking: Iconicity vs. economy, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aleksandravičiūtė, Skaiste
2013The semantic effects of the Subject Genitive of Negation in Lithuanian, Baltic Linguistics 4: 9–38.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
2001On the development of the nominative objects in Baltic. In The Circum-Baltic Languages. Grammar and Typology. Vol. 1, Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 391–412. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė. Historische Syntax der Litauischen Sprache. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas/Institut für Litauische Sprache.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas, Geniušienė, Emma, Girdenis, Aleksas, Sližienė, Nijolė & Tekorienė, Dalia
2006Lithuanian Grammar. Edited by Vytautas Ambrazas. 2nd revised editition. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2012Participial complementation in Lithuanian. In Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, Volker Gast and Holger Diessel (eds), 285–334. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Joseph
2001Asymmetry in emphatic topicalization. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 15–47. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Bayer, Joseph & Dasgupta, Probal
2014Emphatic topicalization and the structure of the left periphery: Evidence from German and Bangla. To appear in Syntax.
Bergmane, Anna, Blinkena, Aina, Grabis, Rūdolfs, & Sokols, Evalds
1962Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. II. Sintakse. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna
2001Inflectional morphology. Expanded version of chapter published in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. [Downloaded at http://​www​.spw​.uzh​.ch​/autotyp​/download​/infl​.pdf, 06.08.2014.]Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1998Le marquage de l’experient dans les langues de l’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed), 259–294. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam
1986Grammatical and anaphoric agreement. In Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory 22 (2): 278–97. Chicago.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
CCLL
Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language. University of Kaunas. http://​tekstynas​.vdu​.lt​/tekstynas/
Chelliah, Shobhana L.
2009Semantic role to new information in Meithei. In The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series, 108], Jóhanna Barðdal and Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds), 377–400. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1979Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class, Linguistica Silesiana 3: 13–21.Google Scholar
1981Language Universals and Language Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
2005Suppletion in personal pronouns: Theory versus practice, and the place of reproducibility in typology, Linguistic Typology 9: 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis
To appear. The Obligatory Coding Principle in diachronic perspective. In Typological Hierarchies, Fernando Zúñiga and Sonia Cristofaro (eds)
Croft, William
1988Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 159–180. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2003Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio
2012Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danylenko, Andriy
2003Predykaty, vidminky i diatezy v ukraïns’kij movi: Istoryčnyj i typolohičnyj aspekty [Predicates, Cases and Diatheses in Ukrainian: Historical and Typological Aspects]. Xarkiv: Oko.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1997Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information, Linguistic Typology 1: 33–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. R.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 63: 805–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Endzelin, J.
1905Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs, Bezzenbergers Beiträge 29: 320–321.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011Differential agent marking and animacy, Lingua 121: 533–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filin, Fedot P.
1972Proisxoždenie russkogo, ukrainskogo i belorusskogo jazykov. Istoriko-dialektologičeskij očerk [The Origin of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian: An Historical and Dialectological Study]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E.
1928Syntax der litauischen Kasus. Kaunas: Valstybės spaustuvė.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & Lavine, James
2006Case and Word Order in Lithuanian, Journal of Linguistics 42 (1): 239–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner
2010Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German, Lingua 120: 1416–1435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaby, Alice
2010From discourse to syntax and back: The lifecycle of Kuuk Thaayorre ergative morphology, Lingua 120: 1677–1692. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitriy
2013Diachrony of experiencer subject marking: Evidence from East Caucasian. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 140.], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 231–256. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1976Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 57–98. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2001Syntax. An Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Eitan
2014Case in Coptic: what’s ‘coded’? Paper presented at the Workshop on ‘Case and Agreement: Between Grammar and Pragmatics’. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 13 January 2014.
Gundel, Jeanette K.
1988Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 17], Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik and Jessica Wirth (eds), 209–239. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina
2008Focus and emphasis in tone and intonational languages. In The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, Anita Steube (ed), 389–411. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects [Typological Studies in Language, 46], Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds), 53–83. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Sims, Andrea D.
2010Understanding Morphology. 2nd edition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa
1996A discourse perspective on the grammaticization of the partitive case in Finnish. In SKY 1996. Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland 18, Timo Haukioja, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Elise Kärkkäinen (eds), 7–34. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes
1999The typology of 1st person marking and its cognitive background. In Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 152], Masako K. Hiraga, Chris Sinha and Sherman Wilcox (eds), 285–297. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2010Null subject parameters. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts and Michelle Sheehan (eds), 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
1992Objects, cognate accusatives, and adverbials, Linguistica Baltica 1: 103–112.Google Scholar
2001Studies in the Latvian Verb. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
2007Mood and Modality in Baltic. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
2009Difuziniai subjektai ir objektai. In Gramatinių funkcijų prigimtis ir raiška, Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas (eds), 37–68. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas & Asociacija ‘Academia Salensis’.Google Scholar
2013Obliqueness, quasi-subjects and transitivity in Baltic and Slavonic. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 140], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 257–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole
2014Argument marking and grammatical relations in Baltic. An overview. In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1], Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau (eds), 1–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Grzybowska, Marta
2014: In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1], Holvoet, Axel and Nicole Nau (eds.), 97–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen
2003Partitivity. In The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book, Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma (eds), 151–174. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver E.
2009Asymmetry in case marking: nominal vs. pronominal systems, In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds), 247–257. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jablonskis, J.
1957Linksniai ir prielinksniai. In Rinktiniai raštai 1, edited by Jonas Palionis. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.Google Scholar
Kalnača, Andra & Lokmane, Ilze
2014Modal semantics and morphosyntax of the Latvian Debitive. In Modes of Modality. Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 149], Elisabeth Leiss and Werner Abraham (eds), 167–192. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1976Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li. (ed), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Alexandr E.
1997Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology, Linguistic Typology 1: 279–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A.
2011Reference in Discourse, [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1998Partitive case and aspect. In The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. London/New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus Constructions across languages, Studies in Language 24 (3): 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions, Linguistics 39 (3): 463–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
2002Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research, Folia Linguistica 36 (3–4): 141–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lomtev, T.N.
1941Issledovanija v oblasti istorii belorusskogo sintaksisa [Investigations in Belarusian Syntax]. Učenyje zapiski. Serija Filologičeskaja. Vyp. II. Minsk: Belorusskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop
1990The A/A´ Distinction and Movement Theory. Ph.D. dissetation, MIT.
Malchukov, Andrey & Spencer, Andrew
2009Typology of case systems: parameters of variation. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer (eds), 651–667. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan
1993Of Nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne (eds), 49–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje
1997A Short Grammar of Latvian. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
McGregor, William
1998Optional ergative marking in Gooniyandi revisited: implications to the theory of marking, Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 87 (3–4): 491–571.Google Scholar
2010Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective, Lingua 120: 1610–1636 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molnár, Valéria & Winkler, Susanne
2010Edges and gaps: Contrast at the interfaces, Lingua 120: 1392–1415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montaut, Annie
2004Oblique main arguments in Hindi. In Non-Nominative Subjects [Typological Studies in Language, 60–61], Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), vol. 2, 33–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013The rise of non-canonical subjects and semantic alignments in Hindi. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 140], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 91–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, John & Perlmutter, David M.
2000What does it take to be a Dative Subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morimoto, Y.
2009From topic to subject marking: Implications for a typology of subject marking. In Differential Subject Marking, Helen de Hoop and Peter de Swart (eds), 199–221. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt
2002From aspectuality to discourse marking: the case of French ‘déjà’ and ‘encore’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 23–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt & Strudsholm, Erling
2008The semantics of particles: advantages of a contrastive and panchronic approach: a study of the polysemy of French déjà and Italian già, Linguistics 46 (3): 471–505.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
2012The history of an attractor state: Adventitious m in Nakh-Daghestanian pronominals. In Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012 [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 264], 261–278. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Robert
1997Jingulu Grammar, Dictionary, and Texts. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Roduner, Markus
2005Der Nominativ in Zeitadverbien im Litauischen. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 52: 41–58.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan
2010‘Optional’ ergativity and the framing of reported speech, Lingua 120: 1652–1676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
1987The thetic/categorical distinction revisited, Linguistics 25: 511–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2012The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. A diachronic and areal approach, Lingua 122: 356–385.Google Scholar
2013aRise of canonical objecthood with the Lithuanian verbs of pain. Baltic Linguistics 4: 187–211.Google Scholar
2013bRise of canonical subjecthood. In The Diachronic Typology of Non-canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 140], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 283–310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013cThe diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. In The Diachrony of Non-Canonical Subjects [Studies in Language Companion Series, 140], Ilja A. Seržant and Leonid Kulikov (eds), 313–360. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant Ilja A.
2014The Independent Partitive Genitive in Lithuanian. In Grammatical Functions and their Non-canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 1], Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau (eds), 257–299. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2015Dative experiencers as a Circum-Baltic isogloss. In Contemporary Approaches to Baltic Linguistics, Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet, and Björn Wiemer (eds), 325–348. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2013Third person zero of verbal person marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/103, Accessed on 03 10 2014)Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Á.
2004Icelandic non-nominative subjects. In Non-Nominative Subjects [Typological Studies in Language, 60–61], Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds), vol. 2, 137–160. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sudhoff, S.
2010Focus particles and contrast in German, Lingua 120: 1458–1475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šukys, J.
1998Lietuvių kalbos linksniai ir prielinksniai: vartosena ir normos. Kaunas: Šviesa.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1974The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Fennic. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. & Cacoullos, Rena Torres
2012What do subject pronouns do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation. Cognitive Linguistics 23 (4): 711–748. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valiulytė, E.
1998Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos sintaksiniai sinonimai. Vietos, laiko ir priežasties raiška. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
2010Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua 120: 1637–1651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður
2014On the non-canonical marking of the highest-ranking argument in Lithuanian and Icelandic: Steps toward a database. In Grammatical Functions and their Non-canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 1], Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau (eds), 301–361. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen
2009Differential subject marking at argument structure, syntax, and PF. In Differential Subject Marking, Helen de Hoop and Peter de Swart (eds), 17–40. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H.
1985Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar