Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:04:01.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

R. M. W. Dixon, Ergativity. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. xxii+271.

Review products

R. M. W. Dixon, Ergativity. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. xxii+271.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Scott DeLancey
Scott DeLancey
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 173 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chang, B. & Chang, K. (1980). Ergativity in spoken Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 51. 15–32.Google Scholar
Chelliah, S. (1992). A study of Manipuri grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language 55. 59–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1989). Subject and object in universal grammar. In Arnold, D., Atkinson, M., Durand, J., Grover, C. & Sadler, L. (eds.) Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 91–118.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1991). Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67. 510–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. (1980). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar