Grammatical Relations

Grammatical Relations

Volumn , Issue , 2023, Pages 1-234

  Farrell, Patrick ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85188366296     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199264018.001.0001     Document Type: Book

References (264)

1. Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (1999) ' '‘Telic entity’' as a proto-property of lexical predicates’, in M. Butt and T. H. King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG 99 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
2. Ackerman, F. and J. Moore (2001) Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
3. Aissen, J. (1983) ‘Indirect object advancement in Tzotzil’, in D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 272-302.
4. Aissen, J. (1987) Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
5. Aissen, J. (1988) ‘Extensions of brother-in-law agreement’, in M. Barlow and C. A. Ferguson (eds), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 219-35.
6. Aissen, J. (1997) ‘On the syntax of obviation’, Language 73: 705-50.
7. Aissen, J. (1999a) ‘Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil’, Language 75: 451-85.
8. Aissen, J. (1999b) ‘Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673-711.
9. Aissen, J. (2003) ‘Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435-83.
10. Allen, B. J. and D. G. Frantz (1983) ‘Advancements and verb agreement in Southern Tiwa’, in D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Allen, B. J. and D. B. Gardiner (1984) ‘Noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa’, International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 292-311.
12. Allen, C. L. (1986) ‘Reconsidering the history of like’, Journal of Linguistics 22: 375-409.
13. Allen, C. L.(1995) Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Alsina, A. and S. A. Mchombo (1990) ‘The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa-problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 493-506.
15. Anderson, J. M. (1971) The Grammar of Case: Towards a localist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Anderson, J. M. (1977) On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a theory of grammatical relations. London: Croom Helm.
17. Anderson, S. (1976) ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages’, in C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1-23.
18. Aranovich, R. (2000) ‘Split intransitivity and reflexives in Spanish’, Probus 12: 165-86.
19. Arnold, J. E. (1997) ‘The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages’, Revista de Linguiística Teórica y Aplicada 34: 9-48.
20. Arnold, J. E. (1998) Reference form and discourse patterns, Stanford: Ph.D. Dissertation.
21. Baker, M. C. (1988a) Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Baker, M. C. (1988b) ‘Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 353-89.
23. Baker, M. C. (1996) The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Baker, M. C. (1997) ‘Thematic roles and syntactic structure’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in generative syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73-137.
25. Baker, M. C., K. Johnson and I. Roberts (1989) ‘Passive arguments raised’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219-51.
26. Barry, A. K. (1998) English Grammar: Language as human behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Barðdal, J. (2001) ‘The perplexity of dat-nom verbs in Icelandic’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 47-70.
28. Bell, S. J. (1976) Cebuano subjects in two frameworks, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
29. Bell, S. J. (1983) ‘Advancements and ascensions in Cebuano’, in D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143-218.
30. Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi (1988) ‘Psych-verbs and u-theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352.
31. Berinstein, A. (1990) ‘On distinguishing surface datives in K’ekchi’, in P. M. Postal and B. D. Joseph (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3-48.
32. Bickel, B. and Y. P. Yādava (2000) ‘A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indoaryan’, Lingua 110: 343-73.
33. Bittner, M. (1987) ‘On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions’, International Journal of American Linguistics 53: 194-231.
34. Bittner, M. and K. Hale (1996a) ‘The structural determination of case and agreement’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1-68.
35. Bittner, M. and K. Hale (1996b) ‘Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531-604.
36. Blake, B. J. (1990) Relational Grammar. London: Routledge.
37. Blake, B. J. (1994) Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Bloomeld, L. (1917) Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Studies in Langauge and Literature.
39. Bolinger, D. L. (1971) The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40. Bossong, G. (1991) ‘Differential object marking in Romance and beyond’, in D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee (eds), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the 18th linguistic symposium on Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143-70.
41. Bresnan, J. (1982a) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Bresnan, J. (1982b) ‘The passive in lexical theory’, in J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 3-86.
43. Bresnan, J. (1994) ‘Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar’, Language 70: 72-131.
44. Bresnan, J. (2000) Lexical-functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
45. Bresnan, J. and J. M. Kanerva (1989) ‘Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1-50.
46. Bresnan, J. and L. Moshi (1990) ‘Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 147-85.
47. Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
48. Carnie, A. (2002) Syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
49. Centineo, G. (1986) ‘A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian’, Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 1-35.
50. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
51. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
53. Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in S. J. Keyser and K. Hale (eds), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-52.
55. Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Comrie, B. (1978) ‘Ergativity’, in W. P. Lehman (ed.), Syntactic Typology. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 329-94.
57. Coopmans, P. (1989) ‘Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative inversion in English’, Language 65: 728-51.
58. Cooreman, A., B. Fox and T. Givón (1988) ‘The discourse definition of ergativity: A study in Chamorro and Tagalog texts’, in R.McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, pp. 387-425.
59. Croft, W. (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60. Croft, W. (1993) ‘Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs’, in J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 55-72.
61. Croft, W. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62. Czepluch, H. (1982) ‘Case theory and the dative construction’, The Linguistic Review 2: 1-38.
63. Dahlstrom, A. (1991) Plains Cree Morphosyntax. New York: Garland.
64. Davies, W. D. (1986) Choctaw Verb Agreement and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
65. De Guzman, V. P. (1988) ‘Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis’, in R. McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, pp. 323-45.
66. Delancey, S. (1981) ‘An interpretation of split ergativity’, Language 57: 626-57.
67. Delancey, S. (1991) ‘Event construals and case role assignment’, in Proceedings of the 17th AnnualMeeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California, pp. 338-53.
68. Dik, S. C. (1978) Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
69. Dik, S. C. (1980) Studies in Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
70. Dik, S. C. (1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
71. Dixon, R. M. W. (1972) The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Dixon, R. M. W. (1979) ‘Ergativity’, Language 55: 59-138.
73. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74. Dixon, R. M. W. (2000) ‘A-constructions and o-constructions in Jarawara’, International Journal of American Linguistics 66: 22-56.
75. Dixon, R. M. W. and A. Y. Aikhenvald (2000) ‘Introduction’, in R. M. W. Dixon and A. Y. Aikhenvald (eds), Changing Valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-28.
76. Doak, I. G. (1998) Coeur d’Alene grammatical relations, University of Texas, Austin: Ph.D. Dissertation.
77. Dobrovie-Sorin, C. (1994) The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
78. Dowty, D. R. (1979)WordMeaning inMontague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
79. Dowty, D. R. (1982) ‘Grammatical relations andMontague grammar’, in P. Jacobson and G. K. Pullum (eds), The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 79-130.
80. Dowty, D. R. (1991) ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument selection’, Language 67: 547-619.
81. Dowty, D. R., R. Wall and S. Peters (1981) Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
82. Dryer, M. S. (1978) ‘Some theoretical implications of grammatical relations in Cebuano’. Paper presented at University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics 2, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
83. Dryer, M. S. (1983) ‘Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited’, in D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 129-40.
84. Dryer, M. S. (1986) ‘Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative’, Language 61: 808-45.
85. Durie, M. (1985) A Grammar of Acehnese. Dordrecht: Foris.
86. Durie, M. (1988) ‘Preferred argument structure in an active language: Arguments against the category '‘intransitive subject’' ', Lingua 74: 1-25.
87. Dutra, R. (1987) ‘The hybrid Scategory in Brazilian Portuguese: Some implications for word order’, Studies in Language 11: 163-80.
88. Dziwirek, K. (1994) Polish Subjects. New York: Garland.
89. Enç, M. (1989) ‘Pronouns, licensing, and binding’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 51-92.
90. Enç, M. (1991) ‘The semantics of specificity’, Linguistic Inquiry 1-26.
91. Falk, Y. (2001) Lexical-functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
92. Farkas, D. F. (1978) ‘Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian’, in Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 88-97.
93. Farrell, P. (1990) ‘Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 325-46.
94. Farrell, P. (1994a) Thematic Relations and Relational Grammar. New York: Garland.
95. Farrell, P. (1994b) ‘The locative alternation and multistratalism’, Linguistics 32: 5-42.
96. Farrell, P. (1998) ‘Comments on the paper by Lieber’, in S. G. Lapointe, D. Brentari, and P. Farrell (eds), Morphology and its Relation to Syntax and Morphology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 34-53.
97. Farrell, P. (2001) ‘Functional shift as category underspecification’, English Language and Linguistics 5: 109-30.
98. Farrell, P. (2004) ‘Psych verbs with quasi-objects’, in A. S. da Silva A. Torres, and M. Gonçalves (eds), Linguagem, cultura, e cogniçaõ: Estudos de linguiística cognitiva. Coimbra: Almedina, pp. 367-84.
99. Farrell, P., S. A. Marlett, and D. M. Perlmutter (1991) ‘Notions of subjecthood and switch reference: Evidence from Seri’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 431-55.
100. Filip, H. (1997) Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Semantics. New York: Garland.
101. Fillmore, C. J. (1968) ‘The case for case’, in E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 1-88.
102. Finer, D. L. (1985) ‘The syntax of switch reference’, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 35-55.
103. Foley, W. A. and R. D. Van Valin, Jr. (1984) Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104. Franks, S. (1995) Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
105. Gerdts, D. B. (1988a) Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.
106. Gerdts, D. B. (1988b) ‘Antipassives and causatives in Ilokano: Evidence for an ergative analysis’, in R. McGinn (ed.), Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, pp. 295-321.
107. Gibson, J. D. (1980) Clause union in Chamorro and in universal grammar, University of California, San Diego: Ph.D. Dissertion.
108. Givón, T. (1978) ‘Definiteness and referentiality’, in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 291-330.
109. Givón, T. (ed.) (1984) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
110. Givón, T. (ed.) (1997) Grammatical Relations: A functionalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
111. Goldberg, A. E.(1991) ‘A semantic account of resultatives’, Linguistic Analysis 21: 66-96.
112. Goldberg, A. E. (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
113. Green, G. M. (1974) Semantic and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
114. Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
115. Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, R. Goldberg, and R. Wilson (1989) ‘The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation’, Language 65: 203-57.
116. Gruber, J. S. (1965) Studies in lexical relations, MIT: Ph.D. dissertation.
117. Gruber, J. S. (2001) ‘Thematic relations in syntax’, in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 257-98.
118. Hale, K. and S. J. Keyser (1993) ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53-109.
119. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
120. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
121. Harris, A. (1982) ‘Georgian and the unaccusative hypothesis’, Language 58: 290-306.
122. Harris, A. (1990) ‘Georgian: A language with active case marking’, Lingua 80: 35-53.
123. Henderson, T. S. T. (1971) ‘Participant-reference in Algonkin’, Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa 1: 27-49.
124. Herriman, J. (1995) The Indirect Object in Present-day English. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
125. Herslund, M. (1997) ‘Passive and antipassive in a functional description of French reflexive verbs’, Hermes, Journal of Lingusitics 19: 75-92.
126. Hockett, C. (1958) A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
127. Holisky, D. A. (1987) ‘The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi)', Lingua 71: 103-32.
128. Jackendoff, R. S. (1972) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
129. Jackendoff, R. S. (1977) X-bar Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
130. Jackendoff, R. S. (1987) ‘The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 369-411.
131. Jackendoff, R. S. (1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
132. Jaeggli, O. A. (1986) ‘Passive’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587-622.
133. Jespersen, O. (1927) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: Allen & Unwin.
134. Johnson, D. E. and P. M. Postal. (1980) Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
135. Joshi, S. (1993) Selection of grammatical and logical functions in Marathi, Stanford: Ph.D. Dissertation.
136. Kaplan, J. P. (1995) English Grammar: Principles and Facts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
137. Kato, M. A. (1993) ‘The distribution of null pronouns and null elements in object position in Brazilian Portuguese’, in W. J. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto, and E. Raposo (eds), Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages: Selected papers from the 21st symposium on Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225-36.
138. Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie (1977) ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63-100.
139. Kimenyi, A. (1980) A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press.
140. Kiparsky, P. (1998) ‘Partitive case and aspect’, in M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 265-307.
141. Kiparsky, P. (2001) ‘Structural case in Finnish’, Lingua 111: 315-76.
142. Kiparsky, P. (2002) ‘On the architecture of Pāṇini’s grammar’. MS, Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/.
143. Kiparsky, P., and F. Staal (1969) ‘Syntactic and semantic relations in Pāṇini’, Foundations of Language 5: 83-117.
144. Kishimoto, H. (1996) ‘Split intransitivity in Japanese and the unaccusative hypothesis’, Language 72: 248-86.
145. Kisseberth, C. W. and M. I. Abasheikh (1977) ‘The object relationship in Chimwi: ni, a bantu language’, in P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 179-218.
146. Klaiman, M. H. (1990) Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
147. Klaiman, M. H. (1993) ‘The relationship of inverse voice and head-marking in Arizona Tewa and other Tanoan languages’, Studies in Language 17: 343-70.
148. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991) ‘The position of subjects’, Lingua 85: 211-58.
149. Kroeger, P. (1993) Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
150. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) ‘Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese’, Lingvisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
151. La Fauci, N. (1988) Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori.
152. La Polla, R. J. (1993) ‘Arguments against '‘subject’' and '‘direct object’' as viable concepts in Chinese’, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63: 759-813.
153. Lakoff, G. (1971) ‘On generative semantics’, in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232-96.
154. Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
155. Langacker, R. W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
156. Langacker, R. W. (1999) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
157. Larson, R. K. (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-91.
158. Legendre, G. (1987) Topics in French syntax, University of California, San Diego: Ph.D. Dissertation.
159. Legendre, G. (1989a) ‘Inversion with certain French experiencer verbs’, Language 65: 752-82.
160. Legendre, G. (1989b) ‘Unaccusativity in French’, Lingua 79: 95-164.
161. Legendre, G. (1990) ‘French impersonal constructions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 81-128.
162. Lesourd, P. (1976) ‘Verb agreement in Fox’, in J. Aissen and J. Hankamer (eds), Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Linguistics Department, pp. 445-528.
163. Levin, B. (1983) On the nature of ergativity, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
164. Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
165. Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
166. Marlett, S. A. (1984) ‘Switch reference and subject raising in Seri’, in E.-D. Cook and D. B. Gerdts (eds), Syntax and Semantics 16: The syntax of Native American languages. New York: Academic Press, pp. 247-68.
167. Matthews, P. (1997) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
168. May, R. (1985) Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
169. McCawley, J. D. (1971) ‘Prelexical syntax’, in R. J. O’Brien (ed.), 22nd Annual Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 19-33.Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
170. McCawley, J. D. (1973) ‘Syntactic and logical arguments for semantic structures’, in O. Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, 259-376. Tokyo: Tec Co.
171. McClure, W. (1990) ‘A lexical semantic explanation for unaccusative mismatches’, in K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell, and E.Mejiías-Bikandi (eds), Grammatical Relations: A crosstheoretical perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 305-18.
172. McGinnis, M. (2002) ‘Object asymmetries in a phase theory of syntax’, in J. T. Jensen and G. v. Herk (eds), Proceedings of the 2001 CLA Annual Conference. Department of Linguistics: University of Ottawa, pp. 245-56.
173. Megerdoomian, K. (2000) ‘Aspect and partitive objects in Finnish’, in R. Billerey and B. D. Lillehaugen (eds), Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 316-28.
174. Merlan, F. (1985) ‘Split intransitivity’, in J. Nichols and A. Woodbury (eds), Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some perspectives from the field. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324-62.
175. Miller, P. H. and I. A. Sag (1997) ‘French clitic movement without clitics or movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573-639.
176. Minger, D. L. (2002) An analysis of grammatical relations and case marking in Icelandic, University of California, Davis: M.A. Thesis.
177. Mithun, M. (1991) ‘Active/agentive case marking’, Language 67: 510-46.
178. Mohanan, T. (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
179. Moore, J. and D. M. Perlmutter (2000) ‘What does it take to be a dative subject?' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373-416.
180. Moravcsik, E. A. (1974) ‘Object-verb agreement’, Working Papers on Language Universals 13: 25-140.
181. Morimoto, Y. (2002) ‘Prominence mismatches and differential object marking in Bantu’, in M. Butt and T. H. King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG 02 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
182. Mulder, J. G. (1994) Ergativity in Coast Tshimian. Berkeley: University of California Press.
183. Murasugi, K. (1992) Crossing and nested paths: NP movement in accusative and ergative languages, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
184. Musgrave, S. (2001) Non-subject arguments in Indonesian, University of Melbourne: Ph.D. Dissertation.
185. Musgrave, S. (To appear) ‘The grammatical function OBJ in Indonesian’, in S. Musgrave and P. K. Austin (eds), Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian. CSLI Publications.
186. Napoli, D. J. (1993) Syntax: Theory and problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
187. Nichols, J. (1986) ‘Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar’, Language 62: 56-119.
188. Nikolaeva, I. (1999) ‘Object agreement, grammatical relations, and information structure’, Studies in Language 23: 377-407.
189. Noonan, M. (1992) A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
190. Oehrle, R. T. (1976) The grammatical status of the English dative alternation, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
191. Oehrle, R. T., E. Bach, and D. Wheeler (eds) (1988) Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
192. Ortiz De Urbina, J. (1989) Paramaters in the Grammar of Basque: A GB approach to Basque syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
193. Park, H.-Y. (2002) ‘Object asymmetries in Korean’, in M. Butt and T. H. King (eds), Proceedings of the LFG 02 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
194. Payne, T. E. (1982) ‘Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup’ik and Tagalog’, Studies in Language 6: 75-106.
195. Perlmutter, D. M. (1976) ‘Subject downgrading in Portuguese’, in J. Schmidt-Radefeldt (ed.), Readings in Portuguese Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 93-138.
196. Perlmutter, D. M. (1978) ‘Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis’, in Proceedings of the Fourth AnnualMeeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. University of California, Berkeley, pp. 157-89.
197. Perlmutter, D. M. (1982) ‘Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject’, in P. Jacobson and G. Pullum (eds), The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 283-340.
198. Perlmutter, D. M. (ed.) (1983) Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
199. Perlmutter, D. M. (1984) ‘Working 1s and inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua’, in D. M. Perlmutter and C. Rosen (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 292-330.
200. Perlmutter, D. M. (1989) ‘Multiattachment and the unaccusative hypothesis: The perfect auxiliary in italian’, Probus 1: 63-119.
201. Perlmutter, D. M. and P. M. Postal (1983) ‘Some proposed laws of basic clause structure’, in D.M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 81-128.
202. Perlmutter, D. M. and P. M. Postal (1984) ‘The 1-advancement exclusiveness law’, in D. M. Perlmutter and C. Rosen (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 81-125.
203. Perlmutter, D. M. and C. Rosen (eds) (1984) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
204. Perlmutter, D. M. and R. Rhodes (1988) ‘Thematic-sytactic alignments in Ojibwa: Evidence for subject-object reversal’. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.
205. Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
206. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag (1994) Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: CSLI & University of Chicago Press.
207. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.
208. Postal, P. M. (1977) ‘Antipassive in French’, Lingvisticae Investigationes 1: 333-74.
209. Postal, P. M. (1986) Studies of Passive Clauses. Albany: State University of New York Press.
210. Postal, P. M. (1989) Masked Inversion in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
211. Postal, P. M. (1990) ‘French indirect object demotion’, in P. M. Postal and B. D. Joseph (eds), Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 104-200.
212. Postal, P. M. and B. D. Joseph (eds) (1990) Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
213. Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
214. Radford, A. (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
215. Rappaport Hovav, M. and B. Levin (1992) '-Er nominals: Implications for the theory of argument structure’, in T. Stowell and E. Wehrli (eds), Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the lexicon. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 127-53.
216. Rappaport, M. and B. Levin (1988) ‘What to do with u-roles’, in W. Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic relations. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 7-36.
217. Rex, S. M. (2001) Unaccusativity in Spanish, University of California, Davis: Ph.D. Dissertation.
218. Rhodes, R. (1976) The morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa verb, University of Michigan: Ph.D. Dissertation.
219. Roberts, I. G. (1987) The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
220. Roberts, L. (1995) ‘Pivots, voice and macroroles: From Germanic to universal grammar’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 15: 157-214.
221. Roeper, T. (1987) ‘Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267-310.
222. Rosen, C. (1984) ‘The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations’. D. M. Perlmutter and C. Rosen (eds) Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 38-77.
223. Rosen, C. (1988) The Relational Structure of Reflexive Clauses: Evidence from Italian. New York: Garland.
224. Rosen, C. (1990) ‘Rethinking Southern Tiwa: The geometry of a triple-agreement language’, Language 66: 669-713.
225. Rosen, C. and K. Wali (1989) ‘Twin passives, inversion, and multistratalism in Marathi’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 1-50.
226. Rounds, C. (2001) Hungarian: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.
227. Ruwet, N. (1972) Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
228. Ryder, M. E. (1999) ‘Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English’, English Language and Linguistics 3: 269-97.
229. Sag, I., T. Wasow, and E. M. Bender (2003) Syntactic Theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
230. Sapir, E. (1917) ‘Review of Uhlenbeck, C. C., ‘Het passieve Karakter van het Verbum transitivum of van het Verbum actionis in Talen van Noord America’ (‘The passive character of the transitive verb or of the active verb in languages of North America’)', International Journal of American Linguistics 1: 82-86.
231. Schachter, P. (1976) ‘The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above’, in C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 491-518.
232. Schachter, P. and F. T. Otanes (1972) Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
233. Seki, L. (2000) Gramática do Kamaiurá, liíngua Tupií-Guaranií do Alto Xingu. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.
234. Siewierska, A. (1991) Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
235. Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2002) ‘To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691-724.
236. Silverstein, M. (1976) ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112-71.
237. Singh, J. D. (2001) Kārake. Westerville, OH: Pāṇini Foundation.
238. Starosta, S. (1988) The Case for Lexicase: An outline of lexicase grammatical theory. London: Pinter Publishers.
239. Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of phrase structure, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
240. Talmy, L. (1996) ‘Fictive motion in language and '‘ception’'', in P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. F. Garrett (eds), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 211-76.
241. Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Concept structuring systems (vol. 1); typology and process in concept structuring (vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
242. Tesniére, L. (1959) Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
243. Tomlin, R. S. (1986) Basic Word Order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.
244. Ura, H. (1999) ‘Checking theory and dative subject constructions in Japanese and Korean’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 223-54.
245. Ura, H. (2000) Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
246. Ura, H. (2001) ‘Case’, in M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 334-73.
247. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1990) ‘Semantic parameters of split intransitivity’, Language 66: 221-60.
248. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1991) ‘Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145-94.
249. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1993) ‘A synopsis of role and reference grammar’, in R. D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.), Advances in role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-164.
250. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (To appear) Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
251. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. and R. J. La Polla (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
252. Vendler, Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
253. Vestergaard, T. (1977) Prepositional Phrases and Prepositional Verbs. The Hague: Mouton.
254. Watanabe, A. (1993) Agr-based case theory and its interaction with the a-bar system, MIT: Ph.D. Dissertation.
255. Whaley, L. J. (1993) The status of obliques in linguistic theory, State University of New York, Buffalo: Ph.D. Dissertation.
256. Whaley, L. J. (1997) Introduction to Typology: The unity and diversity of language. New York: Sage Publications.
257. Wierzbicka, A. (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
258. Wolfart, C. H. and J. F. Carroll (1981) Meet Cree: A guide to the language. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
259. Woodbury, A. (1977) ‘Greenlandic eskimo, ergativity, and relational grammar’, in P. Cole and J. M. Sadock (eds), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 307-36.
260. Yang, B.-S. (1996) ‘A role and reference grammar account of unaccusativity: Split intransitivity’, Linguistics 4: 77-93.
261. Zaenen, A. (1993) ‘Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics’, in J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 129-61.
262. Zaenen, A., J. Maling, and H. Thráinsson (1985) ‘Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441-83.
263. Zagona, K. (2002) The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
264. Zubizarreta, M. L. (1987) Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.