Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balogh, Kata, Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2020. Nominal anchoring: Introduction. In Kata Balogh, et al. (eds.), Nominal Anchoring: Specificity, Definiteness, and Article Systems Across Languages, 1–18. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2010. The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86: 821–864.Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2011. An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics 28: 1–54.Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2013. Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics 51: 681–706.Google Scholar

Becker, Alton. 1975. A linguistic image of nature: The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics 13: 109–122.Google Scholar

Belloro, Valeria. 2007. Spanish Clitic Doubling: A Study of the Syntax–Pragmatics Interface. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Bentley, Delia. 2006. Split Intransitivity in Italian. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bentley, Delia. 2008. The interplay of focus structure and syntax: Evidence from two sister languages. In Van Valin (ed.), 263–284.Google Scholar

Bentley, Delia. 2019. The logical structure of verbs of quantized and non-quantized change. Paper presented at 2019 International Role and Reference Grammar Conference, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar

Bentley, Delia. 2022. Internally caused change as change by inner predisposition: Comparative evidence from Romance. Ms., University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Berio, Leda, Latrouite, Anja, Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Vosgerau, Gottfried. 2017. Immediate and general common ground. In Brézillon, Patrick, Turner, Roy and Penco, Carlo (eds.), Modeling and Using Context, 1–14. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Bril (ed.), 51–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boas, Franz and Deloria, Ella. 1941. Dakota Grammar. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23. Washington, DC: US Govt. Printing Office.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2019. Operator, information: Revisiting the operator projection in RRG, with special emphasis on tense, aspect, and finiteness. Paper presented at the 2019 RRG Conference, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2017. The Macro-event Property and the layered structure of the clause. Studies in Language 41: 142–197.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Butler, Lindsay K. and Florian Jaeger, T.. 2016. Head-marking and agreement: Evidence from Yucatec Maya. In Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja and Osswald, Rainer (eds.), Explorations of the Syntax–Semantics Interface, 169–207. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1975. Concept and percept: Two infinitive constructions and their vicissitudes. In World Papers in Phonetics: Festschrift for Dr. Onishi Kiju, 65–91. Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 282–390. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741–782.Google Scholar

Bril, Isabelle (ed.). 2010. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce and Gair, James. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). Languages of the World/Materials 63. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Chief, Liangchen. 2007. Scalarity and Incomplete Event Descriptions in Mandarin Chinese. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, Elke. 2004. The German ‘bekommen-passive’ and RRG. In Brian, Nolan (ed.), Linguistic Theory and Practice: Description, Implementation and Processing. Proceedings of the 2004 RRG Dublin Conference, 49–72.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, Elke. 2011. The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG. In Nakamura (ed.), 169–197.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.). 1976. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1984. The semantic basis of syntactic properties. BLS 10: 583–595.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808–845.Google Scholar

Everett, Caleb. 2006. Patterns in Karitiâna: Articulation, Perception, and Grammar. PhD dissertation, Rice University, TX [available on Information Structure in Amazonian languages website].Google Scholar

Everett, Caleb. 2008. Constituent Focus in Karitiâna. Unpublished ms. [available on Information Structure in Amazonian languages website].Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel. 2002. Notes on an RRG Theory of Morphology. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 76: 621–646.Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel. 2008. Wari’ intensional state constructions. In Van Valin (ed.), 381–412.Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel and Kern, Doris. 1997. Wari’. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fleischhauer, Jens. 2016. Degree Gradation of Verbs. Doctoral dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Bril (ed.), 27–50.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Franklin, Karl. 1971. A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics C-16). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2009. Constructions at work. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 201–224.Google Scholar

González Vergara, Carlos. 2006. Las construcciones no reflexivas con ‘se’: Una propuesta desde la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

González Vergara, Carlos. 2009. One rule to rule them all: Logical structures for Spanish non-reflexive se sentences. In Guerrero Valenzuela, Ibáñez and Belloro (eds.), 361–379.Google Scholar

González Vergara, Carlos. 2011. Se-incompatible predicates in Spanish: A RRG explanation. In Nakamura (ed.), 134–142.Google Scholar

Guerrero Valenzuela, Lilián, Ibáñez, Sergio and Belloro, Valeria (eds.). 2009. Studies in Role and Reference Grammar. México: UNAM.Google Scholar

Guerrero Valenzuela, Lilián and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2004. Yaqui and the analysis of primary object languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 290–319.Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In Dixon (ed.), 78–105.Google Scholar

Hasegawa, Yoko. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective TE in Japanese (Studies in Japanese Linguistics 5). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Haviland, John. 1979. How to talk to your brother-in-law in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Languages and Their Speakers, 160–239. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Kroeger, Paul (ed.), Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, 247–293. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71: 103–132.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-called ‘double objects’ and grammatical relations. Language 68: 251–276.Google Scholar

von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss aft die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlects. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry and Zimmer, Karl. 1976. Embedded topic in French. In Charles Li (ed.), 189–211.Google Scholar

Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1985. ‘Activity’ – ‘accomplishment’ – ‘achievement’ – A language that can’t say ‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Makkai, A. and Melby, A. (eds.), Linguistics and Philosophy: Essays in honor of Rulon S. Wells, 265–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Imai, Shingo. 1998. Logical Structures and Case Marking in Japanese. MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

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

Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories and non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark. 1987. A New Approach to Clause Structure in Role and Reference Grammar. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 55–59. Davis: University of California.Google Scholar

Kailuweit, Rolf. 2008. ‘Floating plurals’, pro drop and agreement: An optimality-based RRG approach. In Van Valin (ed.), 179–202.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Alexander E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Planck, Frans (ed.), Ergativity, 61–78. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kihara, C. Patrick. 2017. Aspects of Gĩkũyũ (Kikuyu) Complex Sentences: A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Kolmer, Agnes. 1998. Pluralität im Tagalog (Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln, 31.) Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 167–176.Google Scholar

Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2014. Event existentials in Tagalog: A Role and Reference Grammar account. In Wayan Arka, I. and Mas Indrawati, N. L. K (eds.), Argument Realizations and Related Constructions in Austronesian Languages, Papers from 12-ICAL, Vol. 2, 161–174. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Latrouite, Anja and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. An RRG account of aspects of the information structure-syntax interface in Tagalog. In Van Valin (ed.), 257–283.Google Scholar

Li, Charles (ed.). 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. Discourse Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2008. Transitivity in Kabardian. In Van Valin (ed.), 59–73.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2009. A new typology of control constructions within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar. In Guerrero Valenzuela, Ibáñez and Belloro (eds.), 305–318.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2010. Kabardian causatives, reflexives and case marking domains. Suvremena Lingvistika 69: 45–63.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2017. Agreement in Role and Reference Grammar: A typology of possible targets. Suvremena Lingvistika 84: 157–171.Google Scholar

Nakamura, Wataru (ed.). 2011. New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Nakamura, Wataru. 2021. A neo-Jakobsonian account of default cases: Instrumental vs. dative. In Van Valin (ed.), 135–168.Google Scholar

Narasimhan, Bhuvana. 1998. A lexical semantic explanation for ‘quirky’ case marking in Hindi. Studia Linguistica 52: 48–76.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56–119.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. and Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8: 149–211.Google Scholar

Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke (eds.). 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nuhn, Patrick. 2021. Ay-Inversion in Tagalog: Information Structure and Morphosyntax of an Austronesian Language. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Nunes, Mary L. 1993. Argument linking in English derived nominals. In Van Valin (ed.), 375–432.Google Scholar

O’Connor, Rob. 2008. A prosodic projection for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin (ed.), 227–244.Google Scholar

Ohori, Toshio. 2001. Some Thoughts on a New Systematization of Interclausal Semantic Relations. Unpublished ms. [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Osborne, C. R. 1974. The Tiwi Language. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Osswald, Rainer. 2021. Activities, accomplishments and causation. In Van Valin (ed.), 3–30.Google Scholar

Park, Ki-seong. 1993. Korean Causatives in Role and Reference Grammar. MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Pensalfini, Rob. 2004. Towards a typology of non-configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 359–408.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.Google Scholar

Rijkhoff, Jan. 1990. Explaining word order in the noun phrase. Linguistics 28: 5–42.Google Scholar

Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase: A Typological Study of Its Form and Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 1982. We need (some kind of a) rule of conjunction reduction. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 557–561.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Ruhnau, Arne. 2011. Interpretation of the Topological Field Model of the German Clause in Terms of Role and Reference Grammar. MA thesis, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Actor, topic, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li (ed.), 491–518.Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Schwartz, Linda. 1993. On the syntactic and semantic alignment of attributive and identificational constructions. In Van Valin (ed.), 433–463.Google Scholar

Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 1995. Focus Structure and Morphosyntax in Japanese: wa and ga, and Word Order Flexibility. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2011. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Nakamura, Wataru (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 266–293. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon (ed.), 112–171.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlotta. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Toratani, Kiyoko. 2002. The Morphosyntax and Logical Structures of Compound Verbs in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Ullrich, , Jan. 2011. New Lakota Dictionary (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Lakota Language Consortium.Google Scholar

Ullrich, , Jan. 2018. Modification, Secondary Predication and Multi-Verb Constructions in Lakota. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Ullrich, Jan and Black Bear, Ben Jr. 2018. Lakota Grammar Handbook (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Lakota Language Consortium.Google Scholar

Van Hooste, Koen. 2018. Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5: 361–394.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1985. Case marking and the structure of the Lakhota clause. In Johanna Nichols and Anthony Woodbury (eds.), Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, 363–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990a. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66: 221–260.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990b. Functionalism, anaphora and syntax. (Review article on S. Kuno, Functional Syntax.) Studies in Language 14: 169–219.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin (ed.), 1–164.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 221–49. Mahwah, NJ: LEA [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. Generalized semantic roles and the syntax–semantics interface. In Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and Marandin, J.-M., (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2, 373–389. The Hague: Thesus [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2001. The acquisition of complex sentences: A case study in the role of theory in the study of language development. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 36(2): 511–531.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2002. The development of subject–auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language 29: 161–175.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2003. Some remarks on the bekommen-‘passive’ in German. Invited paper presented at the 9th German Linguistics Association Conference, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2004. Semantic macroroles in Role and Reference Grammar. In Kailuweit, Rolf and Hummel, Martin (eds.), Semantische Rollen, 62–82. Tübingen: Narr [available on RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2006. Semantic macroroles and language processing. In Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Comrie, Bernard and Friederici, Angela D. (eds.), Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 263–301. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2008. Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2008. RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in RRG. In Van Valin (ed.), 161–178.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots, and controllers. In Guerrero Valenzuela, Ibáñez and Belloro (eds.), 45–68.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012a. Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. In Pustejovsky, James, Bouillon, Pierrette, Isahara, Hitoshi, Kanzaki, Kyoko and Lee, Chungmin (eds.), Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory, 67–107. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012b. Some issues in the linking between syntax and semantics in relative clauses. In Comrie, Bernard and Fernández, Zarina Estrada (eds.), A Typological Overview of Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2013. Head-marking languages and linguistic theory. In Bickel, Balthasar, Grenoble, Lenore A., Peterson, David A. and Timberlake, Alan (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency. In honor of Johanna Nichols, 91–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2016. An overview of information structure in three Amazonian languages. In Fernandez-Vest, M. M. Jocelyne and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 77–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018a. Some issues regarding (active) accomplishments. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Künkel, Lisa and Staudinger, Eva (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 71–94. Freiburg: FRIAS.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2018b. Dative case and oblique subjects. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carey, Steven, Eythórson, Thórhallur and Pat-El, Na’ama (eds.), Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects: The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull Papers, 115–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 2021. Challenges at the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: A Role and Reference Grammar Perspective. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. Cosubordination. In Van Valin (ed.), 241–283.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Wilkins, David P.. 1993. Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: remember in English and Mparntwe Arrernte. In Van Valin (ed.), 499–534.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Wilkins, David P.. 1996. The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Walton, Charles. 1986. Sama Verbal Semantics: Classification, Derivation and Inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar

Watters, James K. 1993. An investigation of Turkish clause linkage. In Van Valin, (ed.), 535–560.Google Scholar

Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. 1995. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. 2021. Why Eve shouldn’t eat the snake: An intelligent answer from corpus-driven information structure and reference tracking in Biblical Hebrew. In Van Valin (ed.), 285–307.Google Scholar

Yang, Byong-seon. 1994. Morphosyntactic Phenomena of Korean in Role and Reference Grammar: Psych-Verb Constructions, Inflectional Verb Morphemes, Complex Sentences, and Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY). Published by Hankuk Publishers, Seoul, 1994.Google Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan and Thráinsson, Hölskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.Google Scholar