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. 199–258
Published online: 21 January 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.3.05ser
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Creissels, Denis
2018.  In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 59 ff. Crossref logo
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
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andronovs, Aleksejs
1998 “Vajadzības izteiksme” latviešu valodas gramatiskajā tradīcijā. 1. daļa (XVII–XVIII gs.), Baltu filoloģija 8: 154–177.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1990 Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2001 Accessibility Theory: An overview. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, Ted Sanders, Joost Schilperoord and Wilbert Spooren (eds), 29–87. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergmane, Anna
(ed) 1959 Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. Fonētika un morfoloģija. Valodas un Literatūras Institūts. Rīga: LPSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.
Bossong, Georg
1982 Der präpositionale Akkusativ im Sardischen. In Festschrift für Johannes Hubschmid zum 65. Geburtstag, Otto Winkelmann and Maria Braisch (eds.), 579–599. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
1998 Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed), 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2001 Phonology and Language Use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul
2001 Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Joan L. Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds), 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Genitive-accusative in Slavic: The rules and their motivation, International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3 (1–2): 27–42.Google Scholar
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen & de Swart, Peter
(eds) 2008 Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1979 Ergativity, Language 55: 59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunkel, George E.
2013 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Band 2. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Endzelin, J.
1901 Ursprung und Gebrauch des lettischen Debitivs, Bezzenbergers Beiträge 26: 66–74.Google Scholar
1905 Zur Entstehung des lettischen Debitivs, Bezzenbergers Beiträge 29: 320–321.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis
1951 Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie
2011 Differential agent marking and animacy, Lingua 121: 533–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, Trevor G.
1984 Georg Dreszell’s Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur lettischen Sprache. Text. Translation. Commentary. Concordance. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee.Google Scholar
1973 The subject of Latvian verbs in the debitive mood. In: Baltic Literature and Linguistics, Arvīds Ziedonis (ed), 213–221. Columbus, Ohio: Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies.Google Scholar
Fennell, Trevor G. & Gelsen, Henry
1980 A Grammar of Modern Latvian. 3 vols. Den Haag: Mouton. Crossref
Fraenkel, Ernst
1928 Litauische Beiträge. Indogermanische Forschungen 46: 44–57.
Givón, Talmy
1979 On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grīsle, Rasma
2005 SPĒKILDZE. Populārvalodniecisku rakstu izlase. 2., elektroniskais izdevums. (Available online at www​.eraksti​.lv​/fetchbook​.php​?urlkey​=2491909, Accessed on 30 08 2015).Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn
2001 Das Modalauxiliar im Slavischen. Grammatikalisierung und Semantik im Russischen, Polnischen, Serbischen/Kroatischen und Altkirchenslavischen. [Slavolinguistica, 2.] München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1989 From purposive to infinitive – a universal path of grammaticalization, Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.Google Scholar
2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, [Typological Studies in Language, 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde and Harry Perridon (eds), 17–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Creating economical patterns in language change. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed), 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 The Behaviour-before-Coding Principle in syntactic change. In Mélanges Denis Creissels, Franck Floricic (ed), 493–506. Paris: Presses de l’École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991 Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich
1988 Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus
2008 Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish, Probus 20 (1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
To appear. The diachronic development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish ditransitive constructions. In The Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking, Ilja A. Seržant, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Kelsey Mann (eds) Berlin Language Science Press
Holvoet, Axel
1998 Notes on the rise of grammaticalization of the Latvian debitive, Linguistica Baltica 7: 101–118.Google Scholar
2007 Mood and Modality in Baltic. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Grzybowska, Marta
2014 Non-canonical grammatical relations in a modal construction: The Latvian debitive. 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), 97–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalnača, Andra & Lokmane, Ilze
2014 Modal semantics and morphosyntax of the Latvian debitive. In Modes of Modality. Modality, Typology, and Universal Grammar, Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), 167–192. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Alexander E.
1997 Beyond subject and object: Toward a comprehensive relational typology, Linguistic Typology 1: 279–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin
1969 Das Nominativobjekt des Infinitivs im Slavischen, Baltischen und Ostseefinnischen, Baltistica 5 (1969): 141–148.
Laca, Brenda
2006 El objeto directo. La marcación preposicional. In Sintaxis histórica del español. Primera parte: La frase verbal, Concepción Company Company (ed), 423–475. Mexico: Fondo de cultura económica / Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2008 Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking, Lingua 118: 203–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B.
1992 The semantics of ergative marking in Gooniyandi, Linguistics 30: 275–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Optional ergative marking in Gooniyandi revisited: Implications to the theory of marking, Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 87 (3–4): 491–571.Google Scholar
ME. – J. Endzelins
(ed.) K. Mǖlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīca 1, Chicago: Die Gruppe der lettischen Baltologen in Chikago 1953 (Quoted after http://​www​.tezaurs​.lv​/mev/.)Google Scholar
Mühlenbach, Karl
1907 O debitivě, Izvěstija Otdělenija russkago jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk 12 (3): 313–333.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole
2012 Modality in an areal context: The case of a Latgalian dialect. In Grammatical Replication and Grammatical Borrowing in Language Contact, Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli and Björn Hansen (eds), 471–514. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta
1977 The Standardization Process in Latvian: 16th Century to the Present [Stockholm Slavic studies]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2005 Otnositel’naja xronologija osnovnyx fonetičeskix izmenenij v istorii verxnelatyšskogo dialekta, Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 53: 39–90.Google Scholar
2013 The 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. & Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
To appear. Introduction. In Diachronic Typology of Differential Argument Marking [Studies in Diversity Linguistics], Ilja A. Seržant, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Kelsey Mann (eds) Berlin Language Science Press Crossref
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed), 112–171. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
1987 Das Dativsubjekt. Ein Beitrag zur lettischen Kasuslehre. Indogermanische Forschungen 92: 220–242.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1974 The Nominative Object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Fennic. München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Vanags, Pēteris
2000 Debitīva formu lietojums visvecākajos latviešu rakstos, Baltu Filoloģija 9: 143–155.Google Scholar
Vanags, Peteris
2012 Problems of Standard Latvian in the 19th Century. Changes in the language planning and changes in planners, from Baltic-Germans to Latvian. In Nation und Sprache in Nordosteuropa im 19. Jahrhundert, Konrad Maier (ed), 199–207. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard
1996 Two cases of necessity modality in the NEE Area: External necessity deriving from motion verbs and the Latvian-Livonian debitive as a case of parallel grammaticalization. In Narmon’Gi. Arbeitspapiere des Berner Projekts zur vergleichenden Darstellung der nordosteuropäischen Sprachen 1, Simon Christen, Jan Peter Locher and Bernhard Wälchli (eds), 42–51. Bern: Institut für slavische und baltische Sprachen und Literaturen, Universität Bern.Google Scholar
2000 Infinite predication as a marker of evidentiality and modality in the languages of the Baltic region. Sprachtypologie & Universalienforschung 53 (2): 186–210.Google Scholar
Weiss, Daniel
1993 Infinitif et datif en polonais moderne – un couple malheureux? In Complétude et incomplétude dans les langues romanes et slaves, Stanisław Karolak and Teresa Muryn (eds), 443–487. Cracovie: WSP.Google Scholar