Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. Spatial, Temporal and Structural Uses of Urdu ko. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2006 Conference. Workshop on Case and Aspect in South Asian Languages.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, Y. 2003. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(4), 673–711. Also in Legendre et al. (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 2003a. Differential Coding, Partial Blocking, and Bidirectional OT. In: Nowak, Pawel, and Yoquelet, Corey (eds), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 2003b. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Alsina, Alex. 2008. A Theory of Structure-Sharing: Focusing on Long-Distance Dependencies and Parasitic Gaps. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery III. 1982. The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. Pages 427–503 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery III. 1985. The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. Pages 132–223 of: Shopen, Tim (ed), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery III. 1996. Semantic Case-Stacking and Inside-Out Unification. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 16(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, R. E., and Kumari, T. C. 1997. Malayalam. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as Resource Management. Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University.

Asudeh, Ash. 2005. Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28(4), 375–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asudeh, Ash. 2006. Direct Compositionality and the Architecture of LFG. Pages 363–387 of: Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Asudeh, Ash. 2010. Towards a Unified Theory of Resumption. In: Rouveret, Alain (ed), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Austin, Peter, and Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Non-Configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 215–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bárczi, Géza. 1980. A magyar nyelv múltja és jelene [The Past and Present of the Hungarian Language]. Budapest: Gondolat.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Approach. In: Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap, vol. 57. Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar

Beames, John. 1872–1879. A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Reprinted in 1966.Google Scholar

Beaver, David, I., and Clark, Brady, Z. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, David. 2006. Control of Agreement in Multi-Object Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Pages 1–11 of: Fujimori, Atsushi, and Silva, Maria Amelia, Reis (eds), Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas.Google Scholar

Beck, David. 2007. Voice and Agreement in Multi-Object Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In: Memorias de IX Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar

Beck, David. 2008. Sorting Out Grammatical Relations in Multi-Object Constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. MS, University of Alberta.

Berman, Judith. 1999. Does German Satisfy the Subject Condition? In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference.Google Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1996. Object Shift and Specificity: Evidence from Ko-Phrases in Hindi. Pages 11–22 of: Papers from the Thirty-Second Regional Meeting of The Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. On the Scope of the Referential Hierarchy in the Typology of Grammatical Relations. Pages 191–210 of: Corbett, Greville, and Noonan, Michael (eds), Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Bisang, Walter, and Yādava, Yogendra, P. 1999. Face vs. Empathy: The Social Foundation of Maithili Verb Agreement. Linguistics, 37(3), 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blake, Barry, J. 2001. Case. Second edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan, David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2002. Notes on Agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery, 1(1).Google Scholar

Bokamba, Eyamba, G. 1981. Aspects of Bantu Syntax. Unpublished manuscript, cited in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987).

Börjars, Kersti, and Vincent, Nigel. 2005. Position vs. Function in Scandinavian Presentational Constructions. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2005 Conference.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, and Vincent, Nigel. 2008. Objects and OBJ. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Chisarik, Erika, and Payne, John. 1999. On the Justification for Functional Categories in LFG. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference.Google Scholar

Bos, Johan, Mastenbroek, Elsbeth, McGlashan, Scott, Millies, Sebastian, and Pinkal, Manfred. 1994. A Compositional DRS-Based Formalism for NLP-Applications. In: International Workshop on Computational Semantics. Also published as Verbmobil Report 59, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany.Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objekt-markierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1989. Morphemic Marking of Topic and Focus. Pages 27–51 of: Kefer, Michel, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds), Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4: Universals of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond. Pages 143–167 of: Wanner, Dieter, and Kibbee, Douglas, A. (eds), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowern, Claire. 2004. Bardi Verb Morphology in Historical Perspective. Ph. D. thesis, Harvard University.

Bresnan, Joan. 1980. Polyadicity. Pages 97–121 of: Hoekstra, Teun, van der Hulst, Harry, and Moortgat, Michael (eds), Lexical Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Republished in revised form in Bresnan (1982).Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan (ed). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni, M. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(1), 1–50. Reprinted in Stowell et al. (1992).Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam, A. 1987. Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in Chichewa. Language, 63(4), 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 147–186.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie. 1990. Deep Unaccusativity in LFG. Pages 45–57 of: Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Farrell, Patrick, and Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel (eds), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Brown, Robert. 1988. Waris Case System and Verb Classification. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, 19, 37–80.Google Scholar

Browne, Wayles. 1970. More on Definiteness Markers: Interrogatives in Persian. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(3), 359–363.Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2007. Semantics, Intonation, and Information Structure. Pages 445–474 of: Ramchand, Gillian, and Reiss, Charles (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object Specificity and Agreement in Hindi/Urdu. Pages 89–103 of: Beals, K., et al. (eds), Papers from the Twenty-Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 2008a. From Spatial Expression to Core Case Marker: Ergative and Dative/Accusative. MS, University of Konstanz.

Butt, Miriam. 2008b. Theories of Case. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, and Ahmed, Tafseer. 2010. The Redevelopment of Indo-Aryan Case Systems from a Lexical Semantic Perspective. Morphology. in press.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 1996. Structural Topic and Focus without Movement. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 1999. The Status of Case. Pages 153–198 of: Dayal, Veneeta, and Mahajan, Anoop (eds), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. Null Elements in Discourse Structure. In: Subbarao, K. V. (ed), Papers from the NULLS Seminar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2003. Case Systems: Beyond Structural Distinctions. Pages 53–87 of: Brandner, Ellen, and Zinsmeister, Heike (eds), New Perspectives on Case Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, Niño, María-Eugenia, and Segond, Frédérique. 1996. Multilingual Processing of Auxiliaries in LFG. Pages 111–122 of: Gibbon, D. (ed), Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference. Mouton de Gruyter. Universität Bielefeld, 7–9 October 1996.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, Grimm, Scott, and Ahmed, Tafseer. 2006. Dative Subjects. Presented at NWO/DFG Workshop on Optimal Sentence Processing.

Carleton, Troi, and Waksler, Rachelle. 2000. Pronominal Markers in Zenzontepec Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics, 66(3), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carleton, Troi, and Waksler, Rachelle. 2002. Marking Focus in Chatino. Word, 53(2), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Çetinoğlu, Özlem, and Butt, Miriam. 2008. Turkish Non-Canonical Objects. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar

Choi, Hye-Won. 1999. Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1996 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. Pages 506–569 of: Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Cambridge, MA: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Subjects and Direct Objects in Uralic Languages: A Functional Explanation of Case-Marking Systems. Études Finno-Ougriennes, 12, 5–17.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class. Linguistica Silesiana, III, 13–21.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Second edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 2003. When Agreement Gets Trigger-Happy. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cook, Phillipa, and Payne, John. 2006. Information Structure and Scope in German. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2006 Conference.Google Scholar

Coppock, Elizabeth, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. Less-Travelled Paths from Pronoun to Agreement: The Case of the Uralic Objective Conjugations. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2010 Conference.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville, G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on Split Intransitivity and Fluid Intransitivity. Pages 139–168 of: Bonami, Olivier, and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 7. CSSP.Google Scholar

Croft, William, A. 1988. Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects. Pages 159–179 of: Barlow, Michael, and Ferguson, Charles, A. (eds), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Croft, William, A. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William, A. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, Peter, W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culy, Christopher, D. 1994. Extraposition in English and Grammatical Theory. MS, University of Iowa.

Culy, Christopher, D. 2000. An Incorporated Topic Marker in Takelma. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2000 Conference.Google Scholar

Cummins, Sarah. 2000. The Unaccusative Hypothesis and the Impersonal Construction in French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 45, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1992. On the (In)dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the Postposition -rā in Persian. Pages 549–573 of: Stein, Dieter (ed), Cooperating with Written Texts: The Pragmatics and Comprehension of Written Texts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahl, Östen, and Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Animacy in Grammar and Discourse. Pages 47–64 of: Fretheim, Thorstein, and Gundel, Jeanette, K. (eds), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahlstrom, Amy. 2009. OBJθ without OBJ: A Typology of Meskwaki Objects. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2009 Conference.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary (ed). 1999. Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 34. New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2005. Nonsubject Agreement and Discourse Roles. Pages 73–94 of: Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics. University of Oxford: Centre for Linguistics and Philology.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald, M., Maxwell, III, John, T., and Zaenen, Annie (eds). 1995. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, Lamping, John, Pereira, Fernando, C. N., and Saraswat, Vijay, A. 1997. Quantifiers, Anaphora, and Intensionality. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 6(3), 219–273. Reprinted in Dalrymple (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, Lamping, John, Pereira, Fernando, C. N., and Saraswat, Vijay, A. 1999. Overview and Introduction. In: Dalrymple, Mary (ed), Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Resource Logic Approach. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Danon, Gabi. 2006. Caseless Nominals and the Projection of DP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24(4), 977–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. Bare Nominals: Non-Specific and Contrastive Readings under Scrambling. Pages 67–90 of: Karimi, Simin (ed), Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen. Reprinted by Garland Press, New York, 1996.

de Hoop, Helen. 2008. Against Affectedness. Pages 212–213 of: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages. University of Tartu and ECLA, Tartu.Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds). 2009. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Hoop, Helen, and Lamers, Monique. 2006. Incremental Distinguishability of Subject and Object. Pages 269–287 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej. 2007. On Fluid Differential Case Marking: A Bidirectional OT Approach. Lingua, 117, 1636–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Hoop, Helen, and Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 2005. Differential Case-Marking in Hindi. Pages 321–345 of: Amberber, Mengistu, and de Hoop, Helen (eds), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case For Case. London and Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2006. Case Markedness. Pages 249–267 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Deo, Ashwini. 2008. Datives: Locations and Possessors. Case Syncretism in Marathi Diachrony. Presented at SFB 471 Case Workshop University of Konstanz, May 8-10 2008.

Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert, M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donohue, Mark. 2004. A Voice Opposition without Voice Morphology. Presented at AFLA 2004, Berlin.

Dowty, David, R. 1991. Thematic Proto Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, Matthew, S. 1986. Primary Objects, Secondary Objects, and Antidative. Language, 62(4), 808–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John, W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855.Google Scholar

Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Towards a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(4), 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 1–26.Google Scholar

Engdahl, Elisabet, and Vallduví, Enric. 1996. Information Packaging in HPSG. In: Grover, Claire, and Vallduví, Enric (eds), Studies in HPSG. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, vol. 12. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Escandell-Vidal, M. Victoria. 2009. Differential Object Marking and Topicality: The Case of Balearic Catalan. Studies in Language, 33(4), 832–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Falk, Yehuda, N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Falk, Yehuda, N. 2006. Subjects and Universal Grammar: An Explanatory Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 1995. Specificity and Scope. Pages 119–137 of: Nash, L., and Tsoulas, G. (eds), Actes du Premier Colloque Langues and Grammaire.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline, and Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Information Structure: Notional Distinctions, Ways of Expression. Pages 123–136 of: van Sterkenburg, Piet (ed), Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The Noun Phrase Hierarchy and Relational Marking: Problems and Counterevidence. Linguistic Typology, 9, 77–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finer, Daniel, L. 1997. Contrasting A-Dependencies in Selayarese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 677–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frank, Anette, and Zaenen, Annie. 2002. Tense in LFG: Syntax and Morphology. In: Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe (eds), How We Say WHEN It Happens: Contributions to the Theory of Temporal Reference in Natural Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Fry, John. 2001. Ellipsis and WA-Marking in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.

Gair, James, W., and Paolillo, John, C. 1997. Sinhala. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 1994. A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Dolakha Newari Dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Africa and Asia.Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 1997. Object Relations and Dative Case in Dolakha Newari. Studies in Language, 21(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Mouton Grammar Library Series 40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1992. Another Look at Object Agreement. Pages 165–177 of: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS22). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart. 2002. Specific Indefinites, Presupposition and Scope. In: Bäuerle, Rainer, Reyle, Uwe, and Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (eds), Presuppositions in Discourse. Oxford: Elsevier. To appear.Google Scholar

Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Topics in Persian VPs. Lingua, 102, 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement. Pages 57–98 of: Li, Charles (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1983a. Introduction. Pages 1–42 of: Givón, Talmy (ed), Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy (ed). 1983b. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1984a. Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case. Pages 151–182 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Objects: Towards A Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1984b. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele, E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Golovko, Evgenij. 2009. Aleutskij jazyk v Rossijskoj Federacii (Struktura, funkcionirovanie, kontaktnye javlenija). [The Aleut Language in the Russian Federation: Structure, Functioning, Contact Phenomena.]. Ph.D. thesis, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg.

Greenberg, Joseph, H. 1977. Niger-Congo Noun Class Markers: Prefixes, Suffixes, Both or Neither. Studies in African Linguistics, supplement 7, 97–104.Google Scholar

Grimes, Barbara, F. 1999. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. SIL International.Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette, K. 1988. The Role of Topic and Comment in Linguistic Theory. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette, K., Hedberg, Nancy, and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 69, 274–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Mongolian. Pages 53–69 of: Schäfer, F. (ed), SinSpec: Working Papers of the FSB732 ‘Incremental Specification in Context’, vol. 1. Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2009. Differential Object Marking in (Khalkha-)Mongolian. Pages 115–129 of: Shibataki, R., and Vermeulen, R. (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 58.Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra, A. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hajičová, Eva, Partee, Barbara, H., and Sgall, Petr. 1998. Topic-Focus Articulation, Tripartite Structures, and Semantic Content. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice, and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A Usage-Based Account. Constructions, 2/2004.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Ditransitive Alignment Splits and Inverse Alignment. Functions of Language, 14(1), 79–102. Special issue on ditransitives, guest edited by Anna Siewierska.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Heine, Bernd. 2004. Grammaticalization. Pages 576–601 of: Joseph, Brian, D., and Janda, Richard, D. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Her, One-Soon. 1991. Topic as a Grammatical Function in Chinese. Lingua, 84(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewson, John, and Bubenik, Vit. 2006. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hockett, Charles. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Honti, László. 1984. Chrestomathia Ostiacica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul, J., and Thompson, Sandra, A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, Chu-Ren. 1989. Subcategorized TOPICs in Mandarin Chinese. MS, Academia Sinica.

Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-Called ‘Double Objects’ and Grammatical Relations. Language, 68(2), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian. 2004. Topicality and Superiority in Bulgarian Wh-Questions. Pages 207–228 of: Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Rivero, Maria, Luisa, and Stojanovic, Danijela (eds), Proceedings of FASL-12: The Ottawa Meeting 2003.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian, and Gerassimova, Veronica, A. 2002. Bulgarian Word Order and the Role of the Direct Object Clitic in LFG. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2002 Conference.Google Scholar

Jäger, Gerhard. 2003. Learning Constraint Subhierarchies: The Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm. Pages 251–298 of: Blutner, Reinhard, and Zeevat, Henk (eds), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Jake, Janice, L. 1980. Object Verb Agreement in Tigre. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 10(1), 71–84.Google Scholar

Jelinek, Eloise, and Carnie, Andrew. 2003. Argument Hierarchies and the Mapping Principle. Pages 265–296 of: Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Willie, Mary, Ann (eds), Formal Approaches To Function in Grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, David, E., and Postal, Paul, M. 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal Pragmatics. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Kaplan, Ronald, M. 1987. Three Seductions of Computational Psycholinguistics. Pages 149–188 of: Whitelock, Peter, Wood, Mary McGee, Somers, Harold, L., Johnson, Rod, and Bennett, Paul (eds), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications. London: Academic Press. Also published as CCL/UMIST Report No. 86.2: Alvey/ICL Workshop on Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications: Transcripts of Presentations and Discussions. Center for Computational Linguistics, University of Manchester. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995:337–367).Google Scholar

Kaplan, Ronald, M. 1988. Correspondences and their Inverses. Presented at the Titisee Workshop on Unification Formalisms: Syntax, Semantics and Implementation, Titisee, Germany.

Kaplan, Ronald, M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. Pages 173–281 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995:29–130).Google Scholar

Kaplan, Ronald, M., and Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-Distance Dependencies, Constituent Structure, and Functional Uncertainty. Pages 17–42 of: Baltin, Mark, and Kroch, Anthony (eds), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago University Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. (1995:137–165).Google Scholar

Karimi, Simin. 1990. Obliqueness, Specificity, and Discourse Functions: Râ in Persian. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 139–191.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward, L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of Subject. Pages 303–333 of: Li, C. N. (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward, L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar

Kellogg, Samuel, Henry. 1893. A Grammar of the Hindi Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reprinted in 1955.Google Scholar

Kepping, Ksenia, B. 1979. Elements of Ergativity and Nominativity in Tangut. Pages 263–277 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Ergativity. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr, and Seleznev, A. 1980. Sintaksis in morfologija glagol'nogo soglasovanija v tabasaranskom jazyke [The Syntax and Morphology of Verbal Agreement in Tabassaran]. Pages 17–33 of: Zvegincev, Vladimir (ed), Tabasaranskie etjudy. Materialy dagestanskoj ekspedicii 1979 G. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar

Kifle, Nazareth, Amlesom. 2007. Differential Object Marking and Topicality in Tigrinya. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2007 Conference.Google Scholar

Kim, Alan. 1988. Preverbal Focus Position in Type XIII Languages. Pages 148–171 of: Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, and Wirth, Jessica (eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

King, Tracy, Holloway. 1995. Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar

King, Tracy, Holloway. 1997. Focus Domains and Information Structure. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference.Google Scholar

King, Tracy, Holloway, and Zaenen, Annie. 2004. F-Structures, Information Structure, and Discourse Structure. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), Online Proceedings of the LFG2004 Conference.Google Scholar

É.Kiss, Katalin Kiss, Katalin (ed). 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

É.Kiss, Katalin Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo. 2006a. Object-, Animacy- and Role-Based Strategies: A Typology of Object Marking. Studies in Language, 30, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo. 2006b. The Woman Showed the Baby to her Sister: On Resolving Humanness-Driven Ambiguity in Ditransitives. Pages 291–308 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2009. DOM and Two Types of DSM in Turkish. Pages 79–111 of: de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1992. A Framework for Focus-Sensitive Quantification. Pages 215–236 of: Barker, Chris, and Dowty, David (eds), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory: SALT II. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 40.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with Focus Phrases. Pages 105–136 of: Molnar, Valerie, and Winkler, Susanne (eds), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1991 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar

Kulonen, Ulla-Maja. 1989. The Passive in Ob-Ugrian. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar

Kuznecova, Ariadna, Xelimskij, Evgenij, and Gruskina, Elena. 1982. Ocherki po sel'kupskomu jazyku [Studies in Selkup]. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar

Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential Function Marking, Case and Information Structure: Evidence from Korean. Language, 84(2), 218–257.Google Scholar

Lam, Olivia, S.-C. 2008. Object Functions and the Syntax of Double Object Constructions in Lexical Functional Grammar. D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the Status of SVO Sentences in French Discourse. Pages 217–261 of: Tomlin, Russell, S. (ed), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When Subjects Behave Like Objects: An Analysis of the Merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus Constructions Across Languages. Studies in Language, 24, 611–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud, and Polinsky, Maria. 1997. Typological Variation in Sentence Focus Constructions. Pages 189–206 of: Papers from the Thirty-Third Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1982. Le morphème râ en persan et les relations actancielles. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris, 73, 177–208.Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1984. Actance Variations and Categories of the Object. Pages 269–292 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Objects: Towards A Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.Google Scholar

Legendre, Géraldine, Vikner, Sten, and Grimshaw, Jane (eds). 2001. Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Leonetti, Manuel. 2003. Specificity and Object Marking: The Case of Spanish a. Pages 67–101 of: von Heusinger, Klaus, and Kaiser, Georg A. (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar

Levin Lori, S. 1986. Operations on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

Liao Gwen, W.-T. 2010. An LFG Account of Empty Pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford University.

Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. The Grammar of Accusative Case in Kannada. Language, 82(1), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lødrup, Helge. 1999. Linking and Optimality in the Norwegian Presentational Focus Construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacKay, Carolyn J., and Trechsel, Frank R. 2008. Symmetrical Objects in Misantla Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics, 74(2), 227–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mahajan, Anoop. 1992. The Specificity Condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(3), 510–516.Google Scholar

Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej. 2006. Transitivity Parameters and Transitivity Alternations: Constraining Co-Variation. Pages 330–357 of: Kulikov, L. I., Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency, and Transitivity: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, and Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview. Draft for the Conference on Ditransitive Constructions, November 2007.

Malchukov Andrej, L. 2008. Animacy and Asymmetries in Differential Case Marking. Lingua, 118, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maling, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie (eds). 1990. Modern Icelandic Syntax. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 24. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Marcantonio, Angela. 1985. On the Definite vs. Indefinite Conjugation in Hungarian: A Typological and Diachronic Analysis. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 35, 267–298.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin. 1982. Identified Object Marking in Hindi and Other Languages. Pages 16–50 of: Koul, O. N. (ed), Topics in Hindi Linguistics. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.Google Scholar

Masica, Colin. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maslova, Elena. 2003a. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouron de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maslova, Elena. 2003b. Information Focus in Relational Clause Structure. Pages 175–194 of: Tsunoda, Tasaku, and Kageyama, Taro (eds), Voice and Grammatical Relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’. Studies in Japanese Linguistics. Stanford/Tokyo: CSLI Publications/Kuroiso Publishers. Revised and corrected version of 1992 Stanford University dissertation, On the Wordhood of Complex Predicates in Japanese.Google Scholar

Mayer, Elisabeth. 2008. Clitics on the Move: From Dependent Marking to Split Marking. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2008 Conference.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the Base Component of a Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language, 4, 243–269. Reprinted in McCawley (1973).Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1973. Grammar and Meaning: Papers on Syntactic and Semantic Topics. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar

McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi Grammar. Oxford/Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Meinunger, André. 1998. Topicality and Agreement. Pages 203–219 of: Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Meinunger, André. 2000. Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mel'čuk, Igor A. 2001. Communicative Organization in Natural Language: The Semantic-Communicative Structure of Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivation. Language, 67, 510–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Grammatical Relations and Clause Structure in Malayalam. Pages 504–589 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Arguments in Hindi. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Reprinted version of 1990 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar

Morimoto, Yukiko. 2002. Prominence Mismatches and Differential Object Marking in Bantu. In: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds), On-line Proceedings of the LFG2002 Conference.Google Scholar

Morimoto, Yukiko. 2009. From Topic to Subject Marking: Implications for a Typology of Subject Marking. Pages 199–221 of: de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mycock, Louise. 2006. The Typology of Constituent Questions: A Lexical Functional Grammar Analysis of ‘Wh’-Questions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.

Mycock, Louise. 2009. “What Do You Do?”: Variation in Interrogative Predicates. Presented at the workshop “Blurring Component Boundaries: Levels of Analysis or Growth of Information?”, LFG09, Cambridge, July 2009.

Næss, Åshild. 2004. What Markedness Marks: The Markedness Problem with Direct Objects. Lingua, 114, 1186–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Næss, Åshild. 2006. Case Semantics and the Agent-Patient Opposition. Pages 309–327 of: Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds), Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neeleman, Ad, and van de Koot, Hans. 2008. Dutch Scrambling and the Nature of Discourse Templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 11(2), 137–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neidle, Carol. 1982. Case Agreement in Russian. Pages 391–426 of: Bresnan, Joan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar. Language, 62(1), 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Object Agreement, Grammatical Relations, and Information Structure. Studies in Language, 23, 331–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. Secondary Topic as a Relation in Information Structure. Linguistics, 39, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised version of 1997 Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar

O'Connor, Robert. 2006. Information Structure in Lexical Functional Grammar: The Discourse-Prosody Correspondence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.

Paoli, Sandra. 2009. Contrastiveness and New Information: A New View on Focus. MS, University of Oxford.

Pápay, József. 1906–1908. Északi-osztják nyelvtanulmányok [Studies on Northern Ostyak]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 36–38, 345–398, 52–79, 164–195, 258–275, 111–150, 313–329.Google Scholar

Paul, Ludwig. 2003. Early Judaeo-Persian in a Historical Perspective: The Case of the Prepositions be, u, pa(d), and the Suffix rā. Pages 177–194 of: Paul, Ludwig (ed), Persian Origins: Early Judaeo-Persian and the Emergence of New Persian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar

Payne, Doris L., and Barshi, Immanuel. 1999. External Possession: What, How, and Why. Pages 3–29 of: Payne Doris, L., and Barshi, Immanuel (eds), External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans (ed). 1995. Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Platzack, Christer. 1983. Existential Sentences in English, Swedish, German and Icelandic. Pages 80–100 of: Karlsson, Fred (ed), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 1995. Double Objects in Causatives: Towards a Study of Coding Conflict. Studies in Language, 19, 129–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 1998. A Non-Syntactic Account of Some Asymmetries in the Double Object Construction. Pages 403–423 of: Koenig, Jean-Pierre (ed), Conceptual Structure and Language: Bridging the Gap. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria, and Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-Distance Agreement and Topic in Tzez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(3), 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Portner, Paul, and Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1998. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Topic Phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(2), 117–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Portner, Paul, and Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 2001. Specific Indefinites and the Information Structure Theory of Topics. Journal of Semantics, 18, 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Ellen. 1981. Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation. Pages 249–264 of: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian. 1997. Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Raz, Shlomo. 1983. Tigre Grammar and Texts. Malibu: Undena Publications.Google Scholar

Rédei, Károly. 1965. Northern Ostyak Chrestomathy. The Hague, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Rosen Sara, Thomas. 2001. The Interpretive Value of Object Splits. Language Sciences, 23, 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. Pages 281–337 of: Haegeman, Liliane (ed), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. Pages 91–136 of: Kathol, Andreas, and Yoon, Jae-Hak (eds), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49. Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rooth, Mats, E.. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Rude, Noel. 1982. Promotion and Topicality of Nez Perce Objects. Pages 463–483 of: Macaulay, Monica, Gensler Orin, D., Brugman, Claudia, Civkulis, Inese, Dahlstrom, Amy, Krile, Katherine, and Sturm, Rob (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Rude, Noel. 1986. Topicality, Transitivity, and the Direct Object in Nez Perce. International Journal of American Linguistics, 52(2), 124–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saeed, John, I. 1984. The Syntax of Topic and Focus in Somali. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar

Saeed, John, I. 1987. Somali Reference Grammar. Wheaton, MD: Dunwoody.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan, A., Wasow, Thomas, and Bender, Emily. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. 1984. The Pragmatics of Noun Incorporation in Eastern Cushitic Languages. Pages 243–268 of: Plank, Frans (ed), Objects: Towards A Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Schulz, B. 2005. Tune in – Drop Out: Harmonic Alignment as a Prerequisite for German Topic Drop. Cited by Erteschik-Shir (2007:24).

Schwarzschild, Roger. 1997. Why Some Foci Must Associate. MS, Rutgers University.

Seidl, Amanda, and Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1997. The Discourse Function of Object Marking in Swahili. Pages 373–387 of: Papers from the Thirty-Third Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Panels on Linguistic Ideologies in Contact. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. Pages 112–171 of: Dixon, R. M. W. (ed), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Singh, Mona. 1994. Thematic Roles, Word Order, and Definiteness. Pages 217–235 of: Butt, Miriam, King Tracy, Holloway, and Ramchand, Gillian (eds), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Skribnik, Elena. 2001. Pragmatic Structuring in Northern Mansi. Pages 222–239 of: Seilenthal, Tönu (ed), Congressus nonus internationalis fenno-ugristarum. 7.- 13.8.2000 Tartu. Pars IV. Dissertationes sectionum: Linguistica III. Tartu: Tartu University.Google Scholar

Steedman, Mark, J. 2001. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim, Wehrli, Eric, and Anderson, Stephen, R. (eds). 1992. Syntax and the Lexicon. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 26. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. 1964. Identifying Reference and Truth-Values. Pages 86–99 of: Steinberg, Danny, D., and Jakobovitz, Leon, A. (eds), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. 1974. Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory, T., and Yadav, Ramawatar. 1988. Maithili Verb Agreement and the Control Agreement Principle. Pages 304–321 of: Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory, vol. 24.Google Scholar

Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The Semantics of Topic-Focus Articulation. Pages 513–540 of: Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo, and Stokhof, Martin (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar

Tereshchenko, Natal'ja. 1979. Nganasanskij jazyk [The Nganasan Language]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar

Toldova, Svetlana, and Serdobolskaya, Natalia. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Uralic Languages: A Multiparameter Analysis. Presented at Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages, University of Tartu, Estonia, May 29–June 1, 2008.Google Scholar

Torrego, Esther. 1998. The Dependencies of Objects. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The Informational Component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Vallduví, Enric, and Engdahl, Elisabet. 1996. The Linguistic Realization of Information Packaging. Linguistics, 34, 459–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert, D. 2003. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vincent, Nigel. 1997. LFG as a Model of Syntactic Change. Pages 1–42 of: Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy, Holloway (eds), Time Over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics, 19, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus. 2008. Verbal Semantics and the Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus, 20(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus, and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. The Case of the Direct Object in Turkish: Semantics, Syntax and Morphology. Turkic Languages, 3, 3–44.Google Scholar

von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. Structured Propositions. Report of the Konstanz SFB.

Windfuhr, Gernot. 1979. Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. Trends in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 1999. Animacy Hierarchy Effects on Object Agreement. Pages 203–216 of: Kotey, Paul (ed), New Dimensions in African Linguistics and Languages (Trends in African Linguistics 3). Trenton: Africa World Press.Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 2000. Object Agreement in Palauan: Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality. Pages 215–245 of: Paul, Ileana, Phillips, Vivianne, and Travis, Lisa (eds), Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Conditions on Object Agreement in Ruwund (Bantu). Pages 177–201 of: Benedicto, E. (ed), The UMass Volume on Indigenous Languages (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

Xelimskij, Evgenij, A. 1982. Drevnejshie vengersko-samodijskie jazykovye paralleli [Ancient Linguistic Parallels between Hungarian and Samoyed]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yang, Ning, and van Bergen, Geertje. 2007. Scrambled Objects and Case Marking in Mandarin Chinese. Lingua, 117, 1617–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan, and Thráinsson, H. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(4), 441–483. Reprinted in Maling and Zaenen (1990:95–164).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2009. Uncharted Territory? Towards a Non-Cartographic Account of Germanic Syntax. Pages 59–84 of: Alexiadou, Artemis, Hankamer, Jorge, McFadden, Thomas, Nuger, Justing, and Schäfer, Florian (eds), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar