Aarts, Bas. 2011. Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aarts, Bas, Chalker, Sylvia & Weiner, Edmund, eds. 2014. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Adger, David. 2007. ‘Three Domains of Finiteness: A Minimalist Perspective’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 23–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2006. ‘Serial Verb Constructions in a Typological Perspective’. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by Aikhenvald, A. & Dixon, R. M. W., pp. 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allan, Keith. 1971. ‘A Note on the Source of There in Existential Sentences’. Foundations of Language 7(1): 1–18.Google Scholar

Amritavalli, Raghavachari. 2014. ‘Separating Tense and Finiteness: Anchoring in Dravidian’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen. 2002. ‘Syntax and Morphology Are Different: Commentary on Jonas’. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, edited by Lightfoot, D., pp. 271–5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. ‘English Reduced Auxiliaries Really Are Simple Clitics’. Lingue e Linguaggio 3(1): 169–86.Google Scholar

Ansaldo, Umberto. 2006. ‘Serial Verb Constructions’. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 11, edited by Brown, K., Anderson, A., Bauer, L., Berns, M., Hirst, G. & Miller, J., pp. 260–4. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1985. ‘Orthography and Linguistic Theory’. Language 61: 28–72.Google Scholar

Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Bache, Carl. 2008. English Tense and Aspect in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Banks, David. 2005. ‘On the Historical Origins of Nominalized Process in Scientific Text’. English for Specific Purposes 24(3): 347–57.Google Scholar

Banks, David. 2017. A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: A Simple Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Basang, Zhuoma. 1990. ‘Batang dongci quzhe xingtai de fenxihua’ [An analysis of verbal inflections in Batang]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 12(5): 76–9.Google Scholar

Bateman, John A. 1990. ‘Finding Translation Equivalents: An Application of Grammatical Metaphor’. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computational Linguistics, edited by Karlgren, H., pp. 13–18. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Baxter, William H. & Sagart, Laurent. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin & Chang, Nancy. 2005. ‘Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding’. In Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions, edited by Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., pp. 147–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi: A Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar

Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 1995. ‘Verb Serialization and Converbs: Differences and Similarities’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by König, E. & Haspelmath, M., pp. 137–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 1998. ‘Adverbiality: The View from the Far East’. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, edited by Van der Auwera, J. & Baoill, D. P. Ó., pp. 641–812. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2001. ‘Finite vs. Non Finite Languages’. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, edited by Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., pp. 1400–13. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2007. ‘Categories That Make Finiteness: Discreteness from a Functional Perspective and Some of Its Repercussions’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 115–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blom, Elma, Krikhaar, Evelien & Wijnen, Frank. 2001. ‘Nonfinite Clauses in Dutch and English Child Language: An Experimental Approach’. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, edited by Do, H.-J. A., Dominguez, L. & Johansen, A., pp. 133–44. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

Boas, Franz. 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Boas, Franz. 1938. The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. ‘Entailment and the Meaning of Structures’. Glossa 2(2): 119–27.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti & Burridge, Kate. 2010. Introducing English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar

Borsley, Robert. 1996. Modern Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bradley, Henry. 1913. On the Relations between Spoken and Written Language with Special Reference to English. London: Proceedings of the British Academy.Google Scholar

Branner, David Prager. 2002. ‘Common Chinese and Early Chinese Morphology’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(4): 706–21.Google Scholar

Branner, David Prager. 2003. ‘On Early Chinese Morphology and Its Intellectual History: Winner of the Barwis–Holliday Award for 2001’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 13(1): 45–76.Google Scholar

Brown, Goold. 1851. The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: William Wood & Company.Google Scholar

Brown, Keith & Miller, Jim. 2016. A Critical Account of English Syntax: Grammar, Meaning, Text. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. ‘Double Object Constructions and Prepositional Dative Constructions Are Distinct: A Reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012’. Linguistic Inquiry 49(1): 123–50.Google Scholar

Bühler, Karl. 2011 [1934]. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bullokar, William. 1906 [1586]. ‘Brief Grammar for English’. In Geschichte Der Fabeldichtung in England Bis Zu John Gay (1726), edited by Plessow, M., pp. 333–73. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar

Burton, Samuel Holroyd. 1984. Mastering English Grammar. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & Dahl, Östen. 1989. ‘The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World’. Studies in Language 13(1): 51–103.Google Scholar

Byrnes, Heidi. 2009. ‘Emergent L2 German Writing Ability in a Curricular Context: A Longitudinal Study of Grammatical Metaphor’. Linguistics and Education 20(1): 50–66.Google Scholar

Caffarel, Alice. 2006. A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: From Grammar to Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Callaway, Morgan. 1901. The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar

Camacho, José A. 2013. Null Subjects. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Aimee L. & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. ‘The Acquisition of English Dative Constructions’. Applied Psycholinguistics 22(2): 253–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Capell, Arthur. 1965. ‘A Typology of Concept Domination’. Lingua 15: 451–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carden, Guy. 1967. Quantifiers as Higher Verbs. IBM Boston Programming Technical Report BPC 5.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald & Michael, McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Caselli, Tommaso & Sprugnoli, Rachele. 2017. ‘It-TimeML and the Ita-TimeBank: Language Specific Adaptations for Temporal Annotation’. In Handbook of Linguistic Annotation, edited by Ide, N. & Pustejovsky, J., pp. 969–88. Dordrech: Springer.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1982. ‘Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature’. In Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy, edited by Tannen, D., pp. 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chamoreau, Claudine & Zarina, Estrada-Fernández. 2016. ‘Finiteness and Nominalization: An Overview’. In Finiteness and Nominalization, edited by Chamoreau, C. & Estrada-Fernández, Z., pp. 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chao, Yuen Ren. 2011 [1968]. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Chelliah, Shobhana L. & de Reuse, Willem J.. 2011. Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. London: Springer.Google Scholar

Chen, Jianmin. 1960. ‘Lun jianyushi he yixie youguan juzi fenxifa de wen’ [Pivotal constructions and issues related to sentence analysis]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 9(3): 101–6.Google Scholar

Chen, Jianmin. 1986. Xiandai Hanyu juxinglun [Sentence patterns in modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. ‘Conditions on Transformations’. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., pp. 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Martin, R., Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J., pp. 89–155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Christie, Frances & Martin, James Robert. 2007. Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. ‘When Nouns Surface as Verbs’. Language 55(4): 767–811.Google Scholar

Classen, Ernest. 1919. Outlines of the History of the English Language. London: Macmillan and Co. Limited.Google Scholar

Cobbett, William & Ayres, Alfred. 1884. The English Grammar of William Cobbett. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar

Colombi, M. Cecilia. 2006. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: Academic Language Development in Latino Students of Spanish’. In Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, edited by Byrnes, H., pp. 147–63. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1975. ‘Polite Plurals and Predicate Agreement’. Language 51(2): 406–18.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976a. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976b. ‘The Syntax of Causative Constructions: Cross-Language Similarities and Divergences’. In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, edited by Shibatani, M., pp. 261–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria, eds. 1993. Causatives and Transitivity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Conrad, Bent. 1982. Referring and Non-Referring Phrases: A Study in the Use of the Gerund and the Infinitive. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar

Cowper, Elizabeth. 2016. ‘Finiteness and Pseudofiniteness’. In Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages, edited by Eide, K. M., pp. 47–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2007. ‘Deconstructing Categories: Finiteness in a Functional-Typological Perspective’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 91–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. ‘Patterns of Variation in Existential Constructions’. Isogloss 1(1): 33–65.Google Scholar

Cumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional Change: The Case of Malay Constituent Order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Curme, George O. 1947. English Grammar. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect System. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Dai, Qingxia. 1981. ‘Zaiwayu shidong fanchou de xingtai bianhua’ [Morphological changes in causatives in Zaiwa language]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 3(4): 36–41.Google Scholar

Daneš, František. 1964. ‘A Three-Level Approach to Syntax’. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 225–40.Google Scholar

Daniel, Canon. 1891. The Grammar History and Derivation of the English Language. London: National Society’s Depository.Google Scholar

Davidse, Kristin. 1999. Categories of Experiential Grammar. Clifton, Nottingham: Department of English and Media Studies, Nottingham Trent University.Google Scholar

Derewianka, Beverly. 1995. ‘Language Development in the Transition from Childhood to Adolescence: The Role of Grammatical Metaphor’. PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.Google Scholar

Derewianka, Beverly. 2003. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in the Transition to Adolescence’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 185–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Devrim, Devo Y. 2015. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: What Do We Mean? What Exactly Are We Researching?’ Functional Linguistics 2(1): 1–15.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1981. Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and Derived Constructions, edited by Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dimroth, Christine & Lasser, Ingeborg. 2002. ‘Finite Options: How L1 and L2 Learners Cope with the Acquisition of Finiteness’. Linguistics 40(4): 647–51.Google Scholar

Ding, Shengshu, Lü, Shuxiang, Li, Rong, et al. 1999. Xiandai Hanyu yufa jianghua [Lectures on modern Chinese grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Dirven, René. 1989. ‘A Cognitive Perspective on Complementation’. In Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest, edited by Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y. & Seuren, P., pp. 113–39. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Dirven, René & Fried, Vilém, eds. 1987. Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Downing, Angela. 2015. English Grammar: A University Course. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Drieman, G. H. J. 1962. ‘Differences between Written and Spoken Language: An Exploratory Study’. Acta Psychologica 20: 78–100.Google Scholar

Duffley, Patrick J. 2003. ‘The Gerund and the To-Infinitive as Subject’. Journal of English Linguistics 31(4): 324–52.Google Scholar

Duffley, Patrick J. 2006. The English Gerund-Participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-Finite Complementation: A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Eide, Kristin Melum. 2016. ‘Introduction’. In Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages, edited by Eide, K. M., pp. 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Epps, Patience & Arkhipov, Alexandre. 2009. ‘Introduction’. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, edited by Epps, P. & Arkhipov, A., pp. 1–9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ernst, Thomas. 1994. ‘Functional Categories and the Chinese Infl’. Linguistics 32: 191–212.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 2010. ‘Semantic Typology’. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, edited by Song, J. J., pp. 504–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Ramm, Wiebke. 2008. ‘Editors’ Introduction: Subordination and Coordination from Different Perspectives’. In Subordination versus Coordination in Sentence and Text: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, edited by Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Ramm, W., pp. 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fan, Fanglian. 1963. ‘Cunzaiju’ [Existential sentence]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 12(5): 386–95.Google Scholar

Fan, Xiao. 1991. Hanyu de duanyu [Phrases in Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Fang, Huaihai & Zhao, Xiaomin. 2008. ‘Cong mingcixing xiaoju kan Hanyu de “budingshi” jiegou’ [On the infinitive structure in Chinese from the perspective of nominal clauses]. Hanyu Xuebao [Journal of the Chinese language] 5(2): 23–30.Google Scholar

Fawcett, Robin. 2008. Invitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the Cardiff Grammar. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Fawcett, Robin. forthcoming. Functional Syntax Handbook: Analyzing English at the Level of Form. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Catherine. 1988. ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone’. Language 64: 501–38.Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan. 1964a. ‘From Comparative Word-Order Studies’. Brno Studies in English 4: 111–28.Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan. 1964b. ‘On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis’. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 267–80.Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Firth, John Rupert. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Firth, John Rupert. 1968. ‘Descriptive Linguistics and the Study of English’. In Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959, edited by Palmer, F. R., pp. 96–113. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja & Osswald, Rainer. 2016. ‘Introduction.’ In Explorations of the Syntax-Semantics Interface, edited by Fleischhauer, J., Latrouite, A. & Osswald, R., pp. 7–14. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar

Fontaine, Lise. 2012. Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fontaine, Lise. 2015. ‘The Noun, Grammar and Context’. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11(2–3): 178–202.Google Scholar

Forbes, John. 1848. The Principles of Gaelic Grammar. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven & Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1993. ‘Negated Adjunct Phrases Are Really Partitive’. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1(2): 208–305.Google Scholar

Freeborn, Dennis. 1992. From Old English to Standard English: A Course Book in Language Variations across Time. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Fu, Dawei. 1980. ‘Cong juzi de neibu jiegou kan suowei “jianyushi”’ [The so-called ‘pivotal construction’ from the perspective sentential inner structure]. Journal of Liaoning University 10(4): 90–6.Google Scholar

Gao, Zengxia. 2006. Xiandai Hanyu liandongshi de yufahua shijiao [Serial verb constructions in modern Chinese from the perspective of grammaticalization]. Beijing: China Archives Press.Google Scholar

Gasde, Horst-Dieter & Paul, Waltraud. 1996. ‘Functional Categories, Topic Prominence, and Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese’. Linguistics 34: 263–94.Google Scholar

Gast, Volker & Diessel, Holger. 2012. ‘The Typology of Clause Linkage: Status Quo, Challenges, Prospects’. In Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, edited by Gast, V. & Diessel, H., pp. 1–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

George, Leland & Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1981. ‘Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish’. In Binding and Filtering, edited by Heny, F., pp. 105–27. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Georgiou, Renos, Papatzalas, Christos & Terzi, Arhonto. 2016. ‘A Non-Finite Period in Early Cypriot Greek’. Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory 6(1): 52–62.Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Givón, Talmy. 1983. ‘Iconicity, Isomorphism, and Non-Arbitrary Coding in Syntax’. In Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, edited by Haiman, J., pp. 187–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Glare, P. G. W., Souter, A., Wyllie, J. M., et al. 1968. Oxford Latin Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. ‘Coordinating Conjunctions in English’. Language 41(2): 260–93.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. ‘Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–24.Google Scholar

Grano, Thomas. 2015. Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney & Nelson, Gerald. 2002. An Introduction to English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. ‘Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements’. In Universals of Language, edited by Greenberg, J. H., pp. 73–113. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gretsch, Petra & Perdue, Clive. 2007. ‘Finiteness in First and Second Language Acquisition’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 432–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Guo, Jie. 2011. ‘Xiandai Hanyu xiaoju xiandingxing shuaijian yanjiu’ [A study on the attenuation of finiteness of clauses in Mandarin Chinese]. PhD thesis, Renmin University of China, Beijing.Google Scholar

Guo, Jie. 2013. ‘Guowai xianding yu feixianding yanjiu de yanhua yu fazhan’ [Overseas studies on finiteness and non-finiteness: Evolution and development]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary linguistics] 15(3): 336–48.Google Scholar

Gwilliams, Laura & Fontaine, Lise. 2015. ‘Indeterminacy in Process Type Classification’. Functional Linguistics 2(8): 1–19.Google Scholar

Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A., eds. 1988a. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988b. ‘Introduction’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1956. ‘Grammatical Categories in Modern Chinese’. Transactions of the Philosophical Society 55(1): 177–224.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1961. ‘Categories of the Theory of Grammar’. Word 17(3): 241–92.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1966a. ‘Some Notes on “Deep” Grammar’. Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 57–67.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1966b. ‘The Concept of Rank: A Reply’. Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 110–18.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967a. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part I’. Journal of Linguistics 3(1): 37–82.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967b. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part II’. Journal of Linguistics 3(2): 199–244.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1968. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part III’. Journal of Linguistics 4(2): 179–215.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1969. ‘Options and Functions in the English Clause’. Brno Studies in English 8: 81–8.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. ‘Language Structure and Language Function’. In New Horizons in Linguistics, edited by Lyons, J., pp. 140–65. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1975. ‘Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language’. In Foundations of Language Development: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by Lenneberg, E. & Lenneberg, E. H., pp. 239–65. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1976. Halliday: System and Function in Language, edited by Kress, G.. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1984. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in English and Chinese’. In New Papers on Chinese Language Use, edited by Hong, B., pp. 9–18. Canberra: Contemporary China Centre, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2002a [1992]. ‘Some Lexicogrammatical Features of the Zero Population Growth Text’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 2: Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse, edited by Webster, J., pp. 197–227. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. [2002b [1979]. ‘Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure and Their Determination by Different Semantic Functions’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 1: On Grammar, edited by Webster, J., pp. 196–218. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2002c [1987]. ‘Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 1: On Grammar, edited by Webster, J., pp. 323–51. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2003a [1966]. ‘Grammar, Society and the Noun’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 3: On Language and Linguistics, edited by Webster, J.. pp. 50–73. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2003b [1995]. The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 3: On Language and Linguistics, edited by Webster, J.. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004a [1995]. ‘Language and the Reshaping of Human Experience’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 7–23. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004b [1998]. ‘Language and Knowledge: The “Unpacking” of Text’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 24–48. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004c [1998]. ‘Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as Technical Knowledge’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 49–101. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004d [1999]. ‘The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: The Framing of the English Clause’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 5: The Language of Science, edited by Webster, J., pp. 102–34. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 2005 [1993]. ‘Quantitative Studies and Probabilities in Grammar’. In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol. 6: Computational and Quantitative Studies, edited by Webster, J., pp. 130–56. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Harris, Roy. 1998. ‘Three Models of Signification’. In Integrational Linguistics: A First Reader, edited by Harris, R. & Wolf, G., pp. 113–25. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Harrison, Matthew. 1861. Rise, Progress, and Present Structure of the English Language. Philadelphia: E. C. and J. Biddle and Co.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. ‘The Converb as a Cross-Linguistically Valid Category’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, edited by Haspelmath, M. & König, E., pp. 1–56. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. ‘Coordinating Constructions: An Overview’. In Coordinating Constructions, edited by Haspelmath, M., pp. 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard, eds. 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hazout, Ilan. 2004. ‘The Syntax of Existential Constructions’. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 393–430.Google Scholar

He, Qingshun & Yang, Bingjun. 2014. ‘A Study of Transfer Directions in Grammatical Metaphor’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(3): 345–60.Google Scholar

He, Qingshun & Yang, Bingjun. 2015. Absolute Clauses in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective: A Corpus-Based Study. London: Springer.Google Scholar

He, Wei & Wang, Minchen. 2018. ‘Yinghanyu “xiaoju” yufa diwei zai shenshi’ [Revisiting the grammatical status of ‘clause’ in English and Chinese]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 50(2): 195–204.Google Scholar

He, Wei & Zhang, Ruijie. 2017. ‘Hanyu shiyiju de gongneng shijiao yanjiu’ [The Chinese causative clause: A functional approach]. Waiyu Xuekan [Foreign language research] 40(6): 53–9.Google Scholar

He, Yuanjian. 2017. ‘Hanyu shifou cunzai hechengxing (huo fenxixing) daoxiang de leixing zhuanbian?’ [How real is the syntheticity-to-analyticity shift from archaic to contemporary Chinese?]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language teaching and linguistic studies] 39(4): 1–15.Google Scholar

He, Yuanjian & Wang, Lingling. 2002. ‘Lun Hanyu shiyiju’ [The syntax of causatives in Chinese]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 23(4): 1–9.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2010. ‘Functional Discourse Grammar’. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, edited by Heine, B. & Narrog, H., pp. 367–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Her, One-Soon. 2008. Grammatical Functions and Verb Subcategorization in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar

Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Kemler Nelson, Deborah G., Jusczyk, Peter W., et al. 1987. ‘Clauses Are Perceptual Units for Young Infants’. Cognition 26(3): 269–86.Google Scholar

Hita, Jorge Arús. 2018. ‘A Contrastive Description of Projection in English and Spanish across Ranks: From the Clause Nexus to the Group’. In Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Sellami-Baklouti, A. & Fontaine, L., pp. 223–45. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, Teun & Hyams, Nina. 1998. ‘Aspects of Root Infinitives’. Lingua 106: 81–112.Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders, Nikanne, Urpo, Oraviita, Irmeli, Reime, Hannu & Trosterud, Trond. 1993. ‘The Structure of INFL and the Finite Clause in Finnish’. In Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, edited by Holmberg, A. & Nikanne, U., pp. 177–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hornby, Albert Sydney. 1975 [1954]. Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. ‘Movement and Control’. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96.Google Scholar

House, Homer C. & Harman, Susan Emolyn. 1950 [1931]. Descriptive English Grammar. 2nd ed. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar

Hu, Jianhua. 1997. ‘Yinghan kongyulei de fenlei fenbu yu suozhi bijiao yanjiu’ [A comparative study of the classification, distribution and reference of empty categories in Chinese and English]. Waiguoyu [Foreign languages] 20(5): 38–44.Google Scholar

Hu, Jianhua, Pan, Haihua & Liejiong, Xu. 2001. ‘Is There a Finite vs. Nonfinite Distinction in Chinese?’ Linguistics 39(6): 1117–48.Google Scholar

Hu, Xuhui. 2010. ‘Chinese Existential Constructions: At the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface’. PhD thesis, Nanjing University.Google Scholar

Hu, Xuhui. 2018. Encoding Events: Functional Structure and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hu, Yushu & Fan, Xiao, eds. 1995. Dongci yanjiu [On verbs]. Kaifeng: Henan University Press.Google Scholar

Huang, Bufan. 1981. ‘Guzangyu dongci de Xingtai’ [The morphology of Old Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 3(3): 1–13.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1982. ‘Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar’. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1983. ‘A Note on the Binding Theory’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 554–61.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1984. ‘On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns’. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–74.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1987. ‘Existential Sentences in Chinese and (in)Definiteness’. In The Representation of (In)Definiteness, edited by Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., pp. 226–53. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1989. ‘Pro-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory’. In The Null Subject Parameter, edited by Jaeggli, O. A. & Safir, K., pp. 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1991. ‘Remarks on the Status of the Null Object’. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, edited by Freidin, R., pp. 56–76. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Huang, C. T. James. 1999. ‘Chinese Passives in Comparative Perspective’. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies 29: 423–509.Google Scholar

Huang, Guowen. 1996. ‘Experiential Enhanced Theme in English’. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations, edited by Berry, M., Fawcett, R. P., Butler, C. & Huang, G., pp. 65–112. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Huang, Guowen. 2010. ‘A Systemic Functional Analysis of “John Is Easy/Eager to Please”’. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(4): 261–7.Google Scholar

Huang, Guowen & Zhang, Meifang. 2003. ‘The Unit of Translation’. Translation Quarterly 30(4): 75–93.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 1989. ‘Anaphora in Chinese: Toward a Pragmatic Analysis’. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 1991a. ‘A Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Theory of Anaphora’. Journal of Linguistics 27: 301–35.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 1991b. ‘A Pragmatic Analysis of Control in Chinese’. In Levels of Linguistic Adaptation, edited by Verschueren, J., pp. 113–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 1992a. ‘Against Chomsky’s Typology of Empty Categories’. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1): 1–29.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 1992b. ‘Hanyu de kongfanchou’ [Empty categories in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 31(5): 383–93.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Huang, Z. Nick. 2015. ‘On Syntactic Tense in Mandarin Chinese’. In Proceedings of the 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, vol. 2, edited by Tao, H., Lee, Y., Su, D., et al. pp. 406–23. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1969. ‘Some Observations on Tense and Deixis in English’. Language 45(4): 777–806.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1988a. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1988b. ‘Review: Constituency, Multi-functionality and Grammaticalization in Halliday’s Functional Grammar’. Journal of Linguistics 24(1): 137–74.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 1971. English Complex Sentences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Hyams, Nina. 2011. ‘Eventivity Effects in Early Grammar: The Case of Non-Finite Verbs’. First Language 32(1–2): 239–69.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. ‘Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics’. In Style in Language, edited by Sebeok, T. A., pp. 350–449. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jarkey, Nerida. 2015. Serial Verbs in White Hmong. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Jeffers, Robert J. 1976. ‘Typological Shift and Change in Complex Sentence Structure’. In Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, edited by Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. & Mufwene, S. S., pp. 136–49. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 1: Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

Jiang, Di. 1992. ‘Zangyu dongci quzhe xianxiang de tongji fenxi’ [A statistical analysis of verbal inflections in Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 14(4): 47–50.Google Scholar

Jin, Peng. 1983. ‘Zangyu dongci biaosanshi de quzhe xingtai jianhua’ [Two ways of simplifying the inflections for representing three tenses in Tibet]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in language and linguistics] 3(1): 169–78.Google Scholar

Jin, Peng. 1988. ‘Zangyu dongci quzhe xingtai xiang zhanzhe xingtai de zhuanbian’ [Change from inflectional forms to affixational forms in Tibetan verbs]. Zhongguo Zangxue [Chinese Tibetology] 1(1): 131–9.Google Scholar

Johns, Alana & Smallwood, Carolyn. 1999. ‘On (Non-)Finiteness in Inuktitut’. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 159–70.Google Scholar

Johnson, Samuel, ed. 1785. A Dictionary of the English Language with a History of the Language and an English Grammar. 6th ed. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kalinina, Elena J. & Sumbatova, Nina. 2007. ‘Clause Structure and Verbal Forms in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 183–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Karlgren, Bernhard. 1920. ‘Le proto-Chinois, langue flexionnelle’. Journal Asiatique 11: 205–32.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne & Verhagen, Arie. 1994. ‘The Grammar of Causatives and the Conceptual Structure of Events’. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2): 115–56.Google Scholar

Kempson, Ruth M. & Quirk, Randolph. 1971. ‘Controlled Activation of Latent Contrast’. Language 47(3): 548–72.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej, Fedorova, Olga & Nikolaeva, Julia. 2015. ‘Multimodal Discourse: In Search of Units’. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, edited by Airenti, G., Bara, B. G. & Sandini, G., pp. 662–7. Aachen: RWTH Aachen University.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej & Molchanova, Natalia. 2013. ‘Channels of Multimodal Communication: Relative Contributions to Discourse Understanding’. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2704–9. New York: Curran Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

Kim, Jong-Bok & Davies, Mark A.. 2019. ‘The INTO-CAUSATIVE Construction in English: A Construction-Based Perspective’. English Language and Linguistics 20(1): 55–83.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. ‘Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax’. Foundations of Language 4(1): 30–57.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1971. ‘Fact’. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, edited by Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A., pp. 345–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang. 2006. ‘On Finiteness’. In Semantics in Acquisition, edited by Van Geenhoven, V., pp. 245–72. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Kolln, Martha J. & Funk, Robert W.. 2012. Understanding English Grammar. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1994. ‘Finiteness’. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Asher, R. E., pp. 1245–8. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2005. ‘Action Nominal Constructions’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B., pp. 254–7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. ‘Verbal and Nominalized Finite Clauses in Turkish’. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 305–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kruisinga, Etsko. 1932 [1915]. A Handbook of Present-Day English. 5th ed. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. ‘Raising and Transparency’. Language 71(1): 1–62.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Larsson, Inger. 2013. ‘Nordic Digraphia and Diglossia’. In Spoken and Written Language: Relations between Latin and the Vernacular Languages in the Earlier Middle Ages, edited by Garrison, M., Orbán, A. P. & Mostert, M., pp. 73–86. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers.Google Scholar

Lassen, Inger. 2003a. Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: A Survey of Style and Grammatical Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lassen, Inger. 2003b. ‘Imperative Readings of Grammatical Metaphor: A Study of Congruency in the Imperative’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 279–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Laury, Ritva & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2008. ‘Introduction’. In Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, edited by Laury, R., pp. ix–xiv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lavid, Julia, Arús, Jorge & Zamorano-Mansilla, Juan Rafael. 2010. Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish: A Contrastive Study with English. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, Adam. 1998. ‘Variation in the Romance Infinitive’. Transactions of the Philological Society 96(1): 1–61.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, Adam. 2007. ‘Diachrony and Finiteness: Subordination in the Dialects of Southern Italy’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 335–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Thomas Hun-tak. 2000. ‘Finiteness and Null Arguments in Child Cantonese’. Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies 30: 365–93.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Deuchar, Margaret & Hoogenraad, Robert. 1982. English Grammar for Today: A New Introduction. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 2002 [1975]. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. Singapore: Longman.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, Claire. 1991. Serial Verbs: Grammatical, Comparative, and Cognitive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1988. ‘Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., pp. 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity: Causative Constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 2008. ‘Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective’. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 31(2): 285–312.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Li, Eden Sum-Hung. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese: A Text-Based Analysis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Li, Jinglian & Liu, Juan. 2005. ‘Finiteness and Non-Finiteness in Chinese’. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 26(1): 19–24.Google Scholar

Li, Jinxi. 2007 [1924]. Xinzhu guowen yufa [A new grammar of Mandarin Chinese]. Changsha: Hunan Education Press.Google Scholar

Li, Linding. 1986. Xiandai Hanyu juxing [Sentence patterns in modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Li, Ming. 2017. ‘Cong “qi” tihuan “zhi” kan shanggu zhonggu Hanyu de jianyushi’ [The so-called pivotal construction in old and middle Chinese: Viewed from the replacement of zhi(之) by qi(其)]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary linguistics] 19(1): 1–33.Google Scholar

Li, Ruya. 2003. ‘Shuwei biaoyin guize yu zhubin buduicheng xianxiang’ [Predication indexing rule and subject-object asymmetry]. Waiguoyu [Foreign languages] 26(1): 22–9.Google Scholar

Li, Xulian. 2008. ‘Douan Zhuangyu de quzhe xingtai’ [Inflectional forms in the Douan Zhuang language]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 30(2): 65–7.Google Scholar

Li, Y. H. Audrey. 1985. ‘Abstract Case in Chinese’. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Li, Y. H. Audrey. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Li, Yuming. 1997. ‘Hanyu yufa “benwei” lunping: Jianping Xing Fuyi “xiaoju zhongshu shuo”’ [Views on the ‘central unit’ in Chinese grammar with comments on Xing Fuyi’s clause as pivot hypothesis]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 11(1): 16–23.Google Scholar

Li, Yunbing. 2006. ‘Miaoyao yu de feifenxi xingtai jiqi leixingxue yiyi’ [The non-synthetic forms in Miaoyao and their typological significance]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 28(2): 31–41.Google Scholar

Liardét, Cassi L. 2013. ‘An Exploration of Chinese EFL Learner’s Deployment of Grammatical Metaphor: Learning to Make Academically Valued Meanings’. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(2): 161–78.Google Scholar

Liardét, Cassi L. 2016a. ‘Nominalization and Grammatical Metaphor: Elaborating the Theory’. English for Specific Purposes 44: 16–29.Google Scholar

Liardét, Cassi L. 2016b. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: Distinguishing Success’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 109–18.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lin, Jo-Wang. 2006. ‘Time in a Language without Tense: The Case of Chinese’. Journal of Semantics 23(1): 1–53.Google Scholar

Lin, Jo-Wang. 2010. ‘A Tenseless Analysis of Mandarin Chinese Revisited: A Response to Sybesma’. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 305–29.Google Scholar

Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2012. ‘Multiple-Modal Constructions in Mandarin Chinese and Their Finiteness Properties’. Journal of Linguistics 48(1): 151–86.Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Linn, Andrew. 2006. ‘English Grammar Writing’. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, edited by Aarts, B. & McMahon, A., pp. 72–92. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Liu, Chen-Sheng. 1999. ‘Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface’. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar

Liu, Danqing. 2010. ‘Hanyu shi yizhong dongcixing yuyan’ [Chinese as a verby language]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 24(1): 3–17.Google Scholar

Liu, Danqing. 2015. ‘Hanyu ji qinling yuyan liandongshi de jufa diwei he xianhedu’ [The syntactic status and mightiness of serial verb constructions in Chinese and its neighboring languages]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 36(3): 3–22.Google Scholar

Liu, Fu. 1920. Zhongguo wenfa tonglun [General introduction to Chinese grammar], edited by Yang, B.. Shanghai: Qunyi Books.Google Scholar

Liu, Qun. 2014. ‘Xiandai Hanyu lianci ruogan teshulei yanjiu’ [Some special types of conjunctions in modern Chinese]. PhD thesis, Wuhan University.Google Scholar

Liu, Ruoyun. 2003. ‘Huizhouhua cinei quzhe bianhua chuyi’ [On the inflectional forms in words of Huizhou dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu [Studies in language and linguistics] 23(2): 110–14.Google Scholar

Liu, Ruoyun & Zhao, Xin. 2007. ‘Hanyu fangyan shengdiao quzhe de gongneng’ [The function of tonic inflections in Chinese dialects]. Fangyan [Dialect] 29(3): 226–31.Google Scholar

Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lowe, John Jeffrey. 2015. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lü, Jianming. 2009. ‘Goushi yu yixiang tushi’ [Construction and image schema]. Journal of Peking University 45(3): 103–7.Google Scholar

Lü, Jiping. 1958. Fuza weiyu [Complex predicates]. Shanghai: New Knowledge Press.Google Scholar

Lü, Jiping. 2002 [1979]. ‘Liangge pingmian liangzhong xingzhi: Cizu he juzi de fenxi’ [Two dimensions and two properties: Analysis of group and sentence]. Xuexi Yu Tansuo [Learning and exploring] 24(4): 80–94.Google Scholar

Lü, Shuxiang. 1990 [1982]. Zhongguo wenfa yaolue [Outlines of the grammar of Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Lü, Shuxiang. 2002 [1979]. Lv Shuxiang wenji [Collected works of Lv Shuxiang], edited by Huang, G.. Changchun: Northeast China Normal University Press.Google Scholar

Luke, Jingguan. 2006. ‘Lun xiaoju zai Hanyu yufa zhong de diwei’ [On the status of clause in Chinese grammar]. Hanyu Xuebao [Journal of the Chinese language] 3(3): 2–14.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia & Parodi, Claudia. 2008. Key Terms in Syntax and Syntactic Theory. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ma, Jianzhong. 1998 [1898]. Mashi wentong [Ma’s Chinese grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Maas, Utz. 2004. ‘Finite and Nonfinite from a Typological Perspective’. Linguistics 42(2): 359–85.Google Scholar

Maetzner, Eduard Adolf Ferdinand. 1874. An English Grammar. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Magnusson, Ulrika. 2013. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in Swedish Monolingual and Multilingual Upper Secondary School Students’ Writing’. Functions of Language 20(2): 250–81.Google Scholar

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1946 [1923]. ‘The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages’. In The Meaning of Meaning, edited by Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A., pp. 296–336. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1935. Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands, vol. 2. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

Mallory, James Patrick. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Euruopeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 2002. ‘Meaning beyond the Clause: SFL Perspectives’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 52–74.Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 1993. ‘Life as a Noun’. In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, edited by Martin, J. R. & Halliday, M. A. K., pp. 242–93. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Martin, Roger. 2001. ‘Null Case and the Distribution of PRO’. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 141–66.Google Scholar

Mathesius, Vilém. 1983 [1927]. ‘Functional Linguistics’. In Praguiana: Some Basic and Less-Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistics School, edited by Vachek, J. & Dušková, L., pp. 121–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter Hugoe. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014a. ‘Introduction’. In Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, pp. xiii–xviii. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014b. ‘Extending the Description of Process Type within the System of Transitivity in Delicacy Based on Levinian Verb Classes’. Functions of Language 21(2): 139–75.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Teruya, Kazuhiro & Lam, Marvin. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. ‘The Structure of Discourse and “Subordination”’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., pp. 275–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

McFadden, Thomas & Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. ‘Finiteness in South Asian Languages: An Introduction’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1–27.Google Scholar

McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb Classification in Australian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Miao, Yizhi. 1957. Hanyu yufa jichu zhishi [Basics in Chinese grammar]. Wuhan: Hubei People’s Press.Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. & Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. ‘Toward a Construction-Based Model of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition’. Language 72: 215–47.Google Scholar

Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Aiden, Aviva Presser, et al. 2011. ‘Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books’. Science 331(6014): 176–82. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644.Google Scholar

Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, John Ezra. 1902. ‘Vergil’s Use of the Infinitive’. MA thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago.Google Scholar

Milsark, Gary L. 2014 [1979]. Existential Sentences in English. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1988. ‘The Grammaticization of Coordination’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, edited by Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A., pp. 331–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. ‘Events, Processes, and States’. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–34.Google Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1832. A Practical Grammar of the English Language and Theory of Moods. 3rd ed. Portland, OR: G. Hyde and Company.Google Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1844 [1795]. English Grammar. New York: M. & S. Raynor.Google Scholar

Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. ‘Some Typological Parameters of Converbs’. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, edited by Haspelmath, M. & König, E., pp. 97–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nelson, Deborah G. Kemler, Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Jusczyk, Peter W. & Cassidy, Kimberly Wright. 1989. ‘How the Prosodic Cues in Motherese Might Assist Language Learning’. Journal of Child Language 16(1): 55–68.Google Scholar

Nelson, Gerald. 2001. Essential English Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nesfield, John Collinson. 1908 [1898]. Manual of English Grammar and Composition. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.Google Scholar

Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1999. ‘Some Remarks on the Functionalist–Formalist Controversy in Linguistics’. In Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. 1, edited by Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M. & Wheatley, K., pp. 469–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. ‘The Prague School and North American Functionalist Approaches to Syntax’. Journal of Linguistics 37: 101–26.Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007a. ‘Constructional Economy and Nonfinite Independent Clauses’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 138–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007b. ‘Introduction’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2010. ‘Typology of Finiteness’. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(12): 1176–89.Google Scholar

Niu, Ruochen & Osborne, Timothy. 2019. ‘Chunks Are Components: A Dependency Grammar Approach to the Syntactic Structure of Mandarin’. Lingua 224: 60–83.Google Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 1985. ‘Complementation’. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 2: Complex Constructions, edited by Noonan, M., pp. 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nowak, Elke. 1996. Transforming the Images: Ergativity and Transitivity in Inuktitut (Eskimo). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Roy C. 1974. ‘Syntactic Differences between Speech and Writing’. American Speech 49(1/2): 102–10.Google Scholar

O’Halloran, Kay L. 1996. ‘The Discourses of Secondary School Mathematics’. PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.Google Scholar

Onions, C. T. 1904. An Advanced English Syntax: Based on the Principles and Requirements of the Grammatical Society. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar

Ohori, Toshio. 1992. ‘Diachrony in Clause Linkage and Related Issues’. PhD thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Painter, Claire. 2003. ‘The Use of a Metaphorical Mode of Meaning in Early Language Development’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 151–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pan, Wuyun. 1991. ‘Shanggu Hanyu shidongci de quzhe xingshi’ [Causative verb inflections in ancient Chinese]. Wenzhou Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Wenzhou Teachers’ College] 13(2): 48–57.Google Scholar

Pang, Shuangzi & Wang, Kefei. 2020. ‘Language Contact through Translation: The Influence of Explicitness in English–Chinese Translation on Language Change in Vernacular Chinese’. Target 32(3): 420–55.Google Scholar

Payne, John R. 1985. ‘Negation’. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause Structure, edited by Shopen, T., pp. 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Payne, Thomas E. 2011. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Peng, Guozhen & Chappell, Hilary. 2011. ‘Ya(33) “Give” as a Valency Increaser in Jinghpo Nuclear Serialization: From Benefactive to Malefactive’. Studies in Language 35(1): 128–67.Google Scholar

Peng, Rui. 2012. ‘Suyin jianyuju de kejieshoudu he yiyi diaocha’ [A survey on the acceptability and meaning judgment of cause-complement pivotal constructions]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 62(6): 509–24.Google Scholar

Peng, Rui. 2013. ‘A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account of the Chinese Cause-Complement Pivotal Construction’. Language Sciences 40: 53–79.Google Scholar

Peng, Rui. 2016. ‘Chinese Descriptive Pivotal Construction: Taxonomy and Prototypicality’. Language and Linguistics 17(4): 529–73.Google Scholar

Peng, Xuanwei. 2011. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics: Chinese Systemic Functional Grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar

Peng, Xuanwei. 2017. ‘“(Text as) Wording” as Wording in Text Size: Stretching Lexicogrammatical Rank Hierarchy from Clause to Text’. Word 63(2): 136–72.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David. 2007. ‘In What Ways Can Finite and Nonfinite Clauses Differ? Evidence from Russian’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 250–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven & Bloom, Paul. 1990. ‘Natural Language and Natural Selection’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4): 707–84.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1993. Sentential Complementation in Sranan: On the Formation of an English-Based Creole Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 2008. ‘Without Aspect’. In Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, edited by Corbett, G. G. & Noonan, M., pp. 263–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Popjes, Jack & Popjes, Jo. 1986. ‘Canela-Krahô’. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 1, edited by Derbyshire, D. C. & Pullum, G. K., pp. 128–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul. 2014 [1966]. ‘On So-Called “Pronouns” in English’. In An Annotated Syntax Reader: Lasting Insights and Questions, edited by Kayne, R., Leu, T. & Zanuttini, R., pp. 12–25. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Poutsma, Hendrik. 1904. A Grammar of Late Modern English, vol. 1. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, Hendrik. 1923. The Infinitive, the Gerund and the Participles of the English Verb. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English, vol. 2. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Qu, Aitang. (1985). ‘Zangyu dongci quzhe xingtai de jiegou jiqi yanbian’ [The structure and evolution of verbal inflections in Tibetan]. Minzu Yuwen [Minority languages of China] 7(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Qu, Chengxi. 1996. ‘Xiandai Hanyu zhong “juzi” de dingyi jiqi diwei’ [The definition and status of ‘sentence’ in modern Chinese]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 10(4): 16–23.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Radford, Andrew. 2004. Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Raposo, Eduardo P. 1987. ‘Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101–36.Google Scholar

Ravelli, Louise. 1988. ‘Grammatical Metaphor: An Initial Analysis’. In Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Some Systemically-Inspired Approaches, edited by Steiner, E. & Veltman, R., pp. 133–47. London: Burns & Oates.Google Scholar

Ravelli, Louise. 2003. ‘Renewal of Connection: Integrating Theory and Practice in an Understanding of Grammatical Metaphor’. In Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics, edited by Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. & Ravelli, L., pp. 37–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Redeker, Gisela. 1984. ‘On Differences between Spoken and Written Language’. Discourse Processes 7(1): 43–55.Google Scholar

Reed, Alonzo & Kellogg, Brainerd. 1900. A High School Grammar. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., Publishers.Google Scholar

Rickman, Paul & Rudanko, Juhani. 2018. Corpus-Based Studies on Non-Finite Complements in Recent English. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. ‘The Composition of INFL: An Exploration of Tense, Tenseless Languages, and Tenseless Constructions’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1331–86.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Ross, Charles Hunter. 1893. The Absolute Participle in Middle and Modern English. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1969. ‘Auxiliaries as Main Verbs’. In Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, edited by Todd, W., pp. 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1972. ‘The Category Squish: Endstation Hauptwort’. In Proceedings of the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., pp. 316–28. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2010. ‘Explaining Grammatical Variation and Change: A Case Study of Complementation in American English over Three Decades’. Journal of English Linguistics 38(1): 4–24.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2015. Linking Form and Meaning: Studies on Selected Control Patterns in Recent English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Rusteberg, F. G. A. 1874. ‘Historical Development of the Gerund in the English Language’. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar

Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna. 2010. ‘Toward Mastering the Discourses of Reasoning: Use of Grammatical Metaphor at Advanced Levels of Foreign Language Acquisition’. Modern Language Journal 94(2): 181–97.Google Scholar

Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna. 2015. ‘A Meaning-Based Approach to the Study of Complexity in L2 Writing: The Case of Grammatical Metaphor’. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 51–63.Google Scholar

Sagart, Laurent. 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward & Swadesh, Morris. 1946. ‘American Indian Grammatical Categories’. Word 2(2): 103–12.Google Scholar

Sawyer, Janet. 1973. ‘Existential Sentences: A Linguistic Universal?’ American Speech 48(3): 239–45.Google Scholar

Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives: External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2008. The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Sebba, Mark. 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter. 2007. ‘Finiteness in Non-Transformational Syntactic Frameworks’. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, edited by Nikolaeva, I., pp. 59–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shen, Jiaxuan. 2012. ‘“Lingju” he “liushuiju”’ [‘Minor sentences’ and ‘flowing sentences’]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 62(5): 403–15.Google Scholar

Shen, Jiaxuan. 2016. Mingci he dongci [Nouns and verbs]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Shi, Cunzhi. 1954. ‘Lun dixishi he jianyushi’ [On consecutive and pivotal constructions]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 3(3): 5–8.Google Scholar

Shi, Dingxu. 2009. ‘Weicixing binyu de jufa diwei’ [The syntactic status of verbal objects]. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic sciences] 8(5): 493–502.Google Scholar

Shi, Youwei. 2017. ‘The Chinese Tense and Aspect Revisited: An Approach with Le as the Focus’. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic sciences] 16(2): 126–41.Google Scholar

Shi, Yuzhi. 1995. ‘Shijian de yiweixing dui jieci yansheng de yingxiang’ [The impact of one dimension of time on preposition evolution]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese language] 34(1): 1–10.Google Scholar

Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. ‘Hanyu de xianding dongci he feixianding dongci zhibie’ [Difference between finite verb and non-finite verb in Chinese]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese teaching in the world] 15(2): 23–7.Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1999. ‘Dative Subject Constructions Twenty-Two Years Later’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2): 45–76.Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2001. ‘Introduction: Some Basic Issues in the Grammar of Causation’. In The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, edited by Shibatani, M., pp. 1–22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sidey, Thomas K. 1909. The Participle in Plautus, Petronius, and Apuleius. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Šimík, Radek. 2013. ‘The PRO-Wh Connection in Modal Existential Wh-Constructions: An Argument in Favor of Semantic Control’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(4): 1163–205.Google Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Taverniers, Miriam & Ravelli, Louise, eds. 2003. Grammatical Metaphor: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlota S. & Erbaugh, Mary S.. 2005. ‘Temporal Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese’. Linguistics 43: 713–56.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael & Escobedo, Joyce. 2001. ‘The Semantics of To-Infinitival vs. -Ing Complement Constructions in English’. In Chicago Linguistic Society CLS 37: The Main Session, edited by Andronis, M., Ball, C., Elston, H. & Neuvel, S., pp. 549–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Soames, Scott & Perlmutter, David M.. 1979. Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Song, Jae Jung. 2006. ‘Causatives: Semantics’. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 2, edited by Brown, K., Anderson, A., Bauer, L., et al. pp. 265–8. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Song, Jae Jung. 2013. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Song, Yuzhu. 1981. Xiandai Hanyu yufa lunji [Modern Chinese grammar colloquium]. Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Press.Google Scholar

Song, Yuzhu. 1982. ‘Dingxin weiyu cunzaiju’ [Endocentric structuring as predicate in existential constructions]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language teaching and linguistic studies] 4(3): 27–34.Google Scholar

Song, Yuzhu. 1986. Xiandai Hanyu yufa shijiang [Ten lectures on modern Chinese grammar]. Tianjin: Nankai University Press.Google Scholar

Song, Yuzhu. 1988. ‘Lüetan “jia zunzaiju”’ [On pseudo-existentials]). Journal of Tianjin Normal University 14(6): 86–9.Google Scholar

Sridhar, Shikaripur N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Steiner, Erich. 2002a. ‘Ideational Grammatical Metaphor: Exploring Some Implications for the Overall Model’. Languages in Contrast 4(1): 137–64.Google Scholar

Steiner, Erich. 2002b. ‘Grammatical Metaphor in Translation: Some Methods for Corpus-Based Investigations’. Language and Computers 39(1): 213–28.Google Scholar

Stephens, Nola. 2015. ‘Dative Constructions and Givenness in the Speech of Four-Year-Olds’. Linguistics 53(3): 405–42.Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Sun, Yinxin. 1998. ‘“de” zi jianyuju xinlun’ [Pivotal construction with ‘de’]. Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese language learning] 19(1): 32–4.Google Scholar

Suonan, Jiancuo. 2013. ‘Zangyu dongci de nianzhuoxing ji quzhexing bianhua yanjiu’ [Changes in the inflection and affixation in Tibetan verbs]. Xizang Daxue Xuebao [Journal of the University of Tibet] 28(1): 70–5.Google Scholar

Sweet, Henry. 1913. Collected Papers of Henry Sweet, edited by Wyld, H. C.. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sybesma, Rint. 2007. ‘Whether We Tense-Agree Overtly or Not’. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 580–8.Google Scholar

Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. ‘The Uniform Case-Licensing of Subjects in Welsh’. Linguistic Review 15(1): 69–133.Google Scholar

Tan, Fu. 1995. ‘Hanyu zhong zhoubianxing de biaoda yiji xianding dongci he feixianding dongci de qubie’ [Neighbouring expressions and the difference between finite verb and non-finite verb in Chinese]. In The Fourth International Symposium of the Chinese Language Teaching, pp. 337–40. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Google Scholar

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. ‘Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-Bar Theory’. PhD thesis, Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar

Tang, Ting-Chi. 2000. ‘Hanyu de xianding ziju yu feixianding ziju’ [Finite and nonfinite clauses in Chinese]. Yuyan Ji Yuyanxue [Language and linguistics] 1(1): 191–214.Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1982. ‘Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives’. Language 58(1): 1–21.Google Scholar

Taverniers, Miriam. 2002. ‘Systemic-Functional Linguistics and the Notion of Grammatical Metaphor: A Theoretical Study and a Proposal for a Semiotic-Functional Integrative Model’. PhD thesis, Ghent University, Netherlands.Google Scholar

Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Japanese. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. ‘A Discourse Approach to the Cross-Linguistic Category “Adjective”’. In Explaining Language Universals, edited by Hawkins, J. A., pp. 167–85. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Thomson, Elizabeth & Armour, William. 2008. Systemic Functional Perspectives of Japanese: Descriptions and Applications. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Ting, Jen. 1998. ‘Deriving the Bei-Construction in Mandarin Chinese’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 319–54.Google Scholar

Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1992. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Trask, Robert Lawrence. 1999. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2011. Causatives in Minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar