Differential case-marking in hindi

Competition and Variation in Natural Languages

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 321-345

  De Hoop, Helen ^a   Narasimhan, Bhuvana ^b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250870770     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50015-X     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Aissen J. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1999, 17:673-711.
2. Aissen J. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2003, 21:435-483.
3. Bhatia T. The treatment of transitivity in the Indian grammatical tradition. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1981, 11(2):125-208.
4. Bhatt R., Anagnostopoulou E. Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. Paper presented at the 32th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1996.
5. Blake B.J. Case 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2nd ed.
6. Blutner R. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 2000, 17:189-216.
7. Bobaljik J.D. Nominally absolutive is not absolutely nominative. Proceedings of the Eleventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1993, 44-60. CSLI, Stanford. J. Mead (Ed.).
8. Bornkessel I. The argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation. Leipzig: MPI-Series in Cognitive Neuroscience 2002.
9. Butt M., King T.H. Semantic case in Urdu. Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1991, 31-45.
10. Butt M., King T.H. The status of case 2002, Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz.
11. Butt M., King T.H. Case systems: Beyond structural distinctions. New perspectives on Case Theory 2003, CSLI Publications, Stanford. H. Zinsmeister, E. Brandner (Eds.).
12. Comrie B. Language universals and linguistic typology 1989, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
13. Davison A. Ergativity. Functional and formal issues. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics 1999, 177-207. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newymeyer, M. Noonan, K. Wheatley (Eds.).
14. Davison A. Dependent structural case as a consequence of VP structure. Paper presented at the Perspectives on argument structure:1999 Texas Linguistics of Society Conference 1999.
15. Dixon R.M.W. Ergativity. Language 1979, 55:59-138.
16. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 1991, 67(3):547-619.
17. Hock H.H. Transitivity as a gradient feature? Evidence from Indo-Aryan, especially Sanskrit and Hindi. Proceedings of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asian and adjacent areas, an ancillary meeting to the CLS regional meeting 1985, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Chicago.
18. de Hoop H. Optimal case assignment. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1999 1999, 97-109. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. R. van Bezooijen, R. Kager (Eds.).
19. de Hoop, H., & Lamers, M. (to appear). Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. Case, valency, and transitivity. In: L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart (Eds), Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
20. de Hoop H., Narasimhan B. Differential subject marking in Hindi. Paper presented at the PIONIER Workshop on Differential Subject Marking 2004.
21. Hopper P.J., Thompson S.A. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 1980, 56(2):251-299.
22. Horn L. Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications 1984, 11-42. Georgetown University Press, Washington. D. Schiffrin (Ed.).
23. Kachru Y. Transitivity and volitionality in Hindi. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1981, 11(2):181-193.
24. Kibrik A.E. Toward a typology of ergativity. Grammar inside and outside the clause 1985, 268-324. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. J. Nichols, A. Woodbury (Eds.).
25. Lee H. Parallel optimization in case systems. Nominals: Inside and out 2003, CSLI, Stanford. M. Butt, T. King (Eds.).
26. Legendre G., Raymond W., Smolensky P. An optimality-theoretic typology of case and grammatical voice systems. Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1993, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
27. Malchukov, A.L. (this volume). Case pattern splits, verb types, and construction competititon.
28. Malchukov, A.L. (to appear). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. In: L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov & P. de Swart (Eds), Case, valency, and transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Mallinson G., Blake B. Language typology: cross-cultural studies in syntax 1981, North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam.
30. Manning C. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations 1996, CSLI, Stanford.
31. Marantz A. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eastern states Conference on Linguistics' 91 1991, 234-253. Ohio State University.
32. Mohanan T. Argument Structure in Hindi 1994, Stanford University, Stanford.
33. N{high symbol}ss. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 2004, 114:1186-1212.
34. Pandharipande R. Transitivity in Hindi. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 1981, 11(2):161-179.
35. Silverstein M. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages 1976, 112-171. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.).
36. Song J.J. Linguistic typology: morphology and syntax 2001, Longman, London.
37. de Swart P. The case mirror. MA. thesis. University of Nijmegen 2003.
38. Van Valin R. An overview of ergative phenomena and their implications for language acquisition. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition 1992, 15-39. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. D.I. Slobin (Ed.).