Universitat Konstanz

SFB 471 "Variation und Entwicklung im Lexikon"

A-24: The role of semantic fields in the development of postpositions and case markers

  




Home 

People 

Research

Database

Events 

Related Literature  


Related Literature

  • Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:673-711.
  • Allen, Cynthia L. 2001. The Development of a New Passive in English. In M. Butt and T.H. King (eds.) Time over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax, 43-72. CSLI Publications. 
  • Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford University Press.
  • van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998.  Modality's Semantic Map. Linguistic Typology 2(1):79-124. 
  • Beames, John. 1872-79. A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. Republished 1966. Munshiram Manoharlal. 
  • Bhatia, Tej. 1993. Punjabi: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar. Routledge. 
  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. Hidden Syntax in Belhare . In Anju Saxena (ed.) Himalayan Languages:  Past and Present. 141-190. Mouton de Gruyter. 
  • Blake, Barry. 2001. Case. Cambridge University Press. 
  • Bloch, Jules. 1920. La formation de la langue marathe. Paris. 
  • Bloch, Jules. 1965. Indo-Aryan: From the Vedas to the Modern Times.  English Edition translated from L'Indo-Aryen du Veda aux temps modernes (1934). Paris. 
  • Bubenik, Vit. 1989. On the Origins and Elimination of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 34:377-398.
  • Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1926. The Origin and Development of the Bengali Literature, Volume II.  Calcutta: D. Mehra, Rupa & Co. 1975 edition.
  • Cummings, Thomas, and T. Grahame Bailey. 1912. Panjabi Manual and Grammar: A Guide to the Colloquial Panjabi of the Northern Panjab. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.
  • Davison, Alice. 1999. Ergativity: Functional and Formal Issues. In Darnell et al. (eds.) Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, Volume I: General Papers, 177-208. John Benjamins.
  • Dayal. Veneeta. 2003. Bare Nominals: Non-specific and Contrastive Readings under Scrambling. In Simin Karimi (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell Publishers.
  • Deo, Ashwini and Devyani Sharma. 2004.  Typological Variation in the Ergative Morphology of Indo-Aryan Languages. Ms., Stanford University and King's College (Submitted).
  • Dixon, R. M.W. 1979.  Ergativity.  Language 55:59-138.
  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
  • Grierson, George A. 1905. Linguistic Survey of India. Reprinted by Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
  • Harris, Alice, and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hock, Hans. 1981. Sanskrit Causative Syntax: A Diachronic Study. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11(2):9-33.
  • Hook, Peter Edwin. 1999.  On Identifying the Conceptual Restructuring of Passive as Ergative in Indo-Aryan. 
  • Hopper, Paul. and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. 
  • Jamison, Stephanie. 1976. Functional Ambiguity and Syntactic Change: The Sanskrit Accusative. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, 12th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 126-135.
  • Kachru, Yamuna. 1978. On Ergativity in Selected South Asian Languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences  8(1):111-127.
  • Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen. Niemeyer. 
  • Keenan, Edward. 2003.  An Historical Explanation and Some Binding Theoretic Facts in English. In John Moore and Maria Polinsky (eds), The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, 152-189. CSLI Publications. 
  • Kellogg, S.H. 1893. Grammar of the Hindi Language. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Second Edition, reprinted 1990.
  • Khan, Baber. 1987.  The Ergative Case in Hindi-Urdu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 17(1):91-101.
  • Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural Case in Finnish. Lingua 111:315-376.
  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. Morphology and grammatical relations. Ms., Stanford University.
  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1988. Agreement and Linking Theory. Ms., Stanford University.
  • Klaiman, M.H. 1980. Bengali Dative Subjects. Lingua 51:275--295.
  • Klaiman, M.H. 1987. Mechanisms of Ergativity in South Asia. Lingua 71:61-102. 
  • Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20:303-318.
  • Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. Formal Syntax, Diachronic Minimalism, and Etymology: The History of French Chez. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2):275-302.
  • Masica, Colin. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. The University of Chicago Press.
  • Masica, Colin. 1991.  The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The Rise of the To-Dative in Middle English. In D. Lightfoot (ed.) Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, 107-123. Oxford University Press.
  • McGregor, R.S. 1968. The Language of Indrajit of Orchå. Cambridge University Press.
  • Mohanan, Tara. 1994.  Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications. 
  • Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998.  Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. CSLI Publications.
  • Pandharipande, Rajeshwari and Yamuna Kachru. 1977. Relational Grammar, Ergativity and Hindi-Urdu. Lingua. 41: 217-23. 
  • Peterson, John M. 1998.  Grammatical Relations in Påli and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München: LINCOM Europa.
  • Pott, A.F. 1873. Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven nominativs. Beiträge zur vergleichenden sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 7:71-94.
  • Sahoo, Kalyanamalini. 2001. Oriya Verb Morphology and Complex Verb Constructions. Phd Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
  • Saksena, Anuradha. 1980. The Affected Agent. Language 56(4):812-826.
  • Saksena, B.R. 1937. Evolution of Awadhi. Motilal Banarsidass. Republished 1971. 
  • Saxena, Anju. 2004. Himalayan Languages:  Past and Present. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Schackle, Christopher. 1976. The Siraiki Language of Central Pakistan. SOAS.
  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages (AIAS Linguistic Series 22), 112-171, Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 
  • Smith, Henry. 1994. `Dative Sickness' in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:675-736.
  • Speijer, J.S. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas. Republished 1973.
  • Stiebels, Barbara. 2000. Linker Inventories, Linking Splits and Lexical Economy. In B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich Lexicon in Focus, 211-245. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • Subbarao, KV. 2001. Agreement in South Asian Languages and Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.In P. Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao  (eds.) The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics,  457-492. New Delhi: Sage Publications. 
  • Verma, M.K and KP Mohanan. 1990.  Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. CSLI Publications. 
  • Vincent, Nigel. 1997. On the Origin of Prepositions. Workshop on Pertinacity, Konstanz.  
  • Wunderlich, Dieter. 2003. Optimal Case Patterns: German and Icelandic Compared. In E. Brandner and H. Zinsmeister (eds.),  New Perspectives on Case Theory, 331-367. CSLI Publications.
  • Wunderlich, Dieter, and Renate Lakämper. 2001. On the Interaction of Structural and Semantic Case. Lingua 111:377-418.
  • Zakharyin, Boris. 1979.  On the Formation of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan and Dardic. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 5:50-17.