Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:42:55.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Versatile cases1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2008

ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD
ALEXANDRA Y. AIKHENVALD*
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University
*
Author's address: Research Centre for Linguistic Typology (RCLT), La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic 3086, Australia. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case markers are thought of primarily as nominal morphemes, indicating the function of a noun phrase in a clause. In a few languages of the world case markers also appear on verbal forms. Such ‘versatile’ cases can express (i) temporal, causal and other relationships between clauses, and (ii) aspectual and modal meanings within a clause. Core cases tend to express aspectual and modal meanings, while oblique cases tend to be used as clause-linkers. The recurrent semantic differences between case morphemes as nominal markers, as clause-linking devices, and as exponents of clausal categories are rooted in the inherent polyfunctionality of these ‘chameleon’ morphemes: the specific meaning of any instance is affected by the morphosyntactic context in which it occurs. The conclusions are corroborated by a case study of Manambu, a Papuan language with extensive use of cases on nouns and on verbs, as exponents of aspectual and modal meanings and as clause-linking devices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 565 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I would like to express my gratitude to those who taught me Manambu, especially Yuamali Ala, Pauline Yuaneng Laki, Gemaj, Jennie Kudapa:kw and numerous others, and to the Brito and Muniz families for teaching me Tariana. Deepest thanks go to Cynthia Allen, Ellen Basso, Barry J. Blake, Seino van Breugel, David Fleck, Carol Genetti, Luise Hercus, Nerida Jarkey, Brian Joseph, Randy J. LaPolla, Aet Lees, Frank Lichtenberk, and Françoise Rose, and two anonymous JL referees for language data, criticisms, comments and suggestions. I am especially grateful to R. M. W. Dixon, for inspiring comments on every page of this paper. This paper could not have been accomplished without the support of most special friends during the blackest hours of 2008. The data on Manambu and on Tariana come from my own fieldwork (and publications based on it). Data on all other languages come from published sources (listed in the references). For the purposes of this paper, I have consulted over 400 grammars (with special attention to the key areas, noted in appendix 1).

References

REFERENCES

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. A typology of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 42–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana, from north-west Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Complement clause types and complementation strategies in Tariana. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 178–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. The Manambu language from East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Akiba, Katsue. 1977. Switch reference in Old Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 3, 610–619.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory. 2004. The languages of Central Siberia: Introduction and overview. In Vajda, Edward J. (ed.) Languages and prehistory of Central Siberia, 1–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1981. Switch-reference in Australia. Language 57, 309–334.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2002. The typology of parts of speech systems: The markedness of adjectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1979. Pitta-Pitta. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, Barry J. (eds.) Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 1, 182–242. Canberra: The Australian National University Press & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1987. Subordinate verb morphology in western Queensland. In Laycock, Donald C. & Winter, Werner (eds.) A world of language: Papers presented to Professor S. A. Wurm on his 65th birthday, 61–68. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1993. Verb affixes from case markers. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 33–58.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1999. Nominal marking on verbs: Some Australian cases. Word 50, 299–317.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Breugel, Seino. 2006. Similarities in verbal and nominal morphology in Atong. Presented at a meeting of Sino-Tibetan Special Interest Group, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
van Breugel, Seino. Forthcoming. A grammar of Atong. Ph.D. dissertation, RCLT, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 2004. The language of the Modhupur Mandi (Garo). New Delhi: Bibliophile South Asia.Google Scholar
Carlin, Eithne B. 2004. A grammar of Trio, a Cariban language of Suriname. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana. 1997. A grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.)vol. 2, 455–492.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Classical Tibetan. In Thurgood, & LaPolla, (eds.) 255–269.Google Scholar
Dench, Alan C. 1995. Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara region of Northern Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dench, Alan C. & Nicholas, Evans. 1988. Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8, 1–47.Google Scholar
Dill, Lisa Beth. 1986. English prepositions: The history of a word class. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. A grammar of Yidiñ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. Forthcoming a. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. Forthcoming b. The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dolgopolsky, Aharon. B. 1991. Kushitskie jazyki [Cushitic languages]. Languages of Asia and Africa, vol. 4, 3–147. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1986. The grammaticization of number as a verbal category. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 12, 355–370.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild, with historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, Allen. 1970. Grammar essentials: Boiken language. Ms., SIL, Ukarumpa.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, Allen. 1979. Grammar sketch: Boiken language – Yangoru dialect. Ms., SIL, Ukarumpa.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1986. The development of subordinators from postpositions in Bodic languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 12, 387–400.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1991. From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.)vol. 2, 227–255.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Imai, Mutsumi & Boroditsky, Lera. 2002. As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space and time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17, 537–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike L. O. 1998. On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1973. Case markers and complementizers in Diegueño. Working Papers on Language Universals 11, 219–222.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1976. A grammar of Diegueño nominals. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gorbet, Larry. 1979. The case marking of Diegueño complement clauses. International Journal of American Linguistics 45, 251–266.Google Scholar
Gordon, Lynn. 1980. -k and -m in Maricopa. In Munro, Pamela (ed.) Studies in switch-reference (UCLA Papers in Syntax 8), 119–143.Google Scholar
Hajek, John. 2004. Adjective classes: What can we conclude? In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 348–361. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Fred, Karlsson. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia [Modern Finnish syntax]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1961. The structure and development of the Finnish language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1982. Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In Swartz, Stephen (ed.) Papers in Warlpiri grammar, in memory of Lothar Jagst (Work Papers of SIL-AAB, series A, vol. 6), 217–315. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world's languages. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A grammar of Movima. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In Groot, Casper de & Tommola, Hannu (eds.) Aspect bound: A voyage in the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugric aspectology, 153–176. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania, Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hercus, Luise. 1982. The Bāgandji language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1969. The verbal system of Southern Agaw. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Holm, David. 2006. The semantics of clause linking in Manchu. Presented at RCLT, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976. Beja. In Bender, M. (ed.) The non-Semitic languages of Ethiopia, 97–132. East Lansing, MI: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver. 2005. Case-asymmetry: A world-wide typological study on lexeme-class-dependent deviations in morphological case inventories. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Ikola, Osmo. 1961. Lauseopin kysymyksiä [Questions of syntax] (Tietolipas 26). Forssa.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki. 1976. Über das Objekt in den finnisch-wolgäischen Sprachen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 39, 53–213.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1983. Typological and genetic notes on switch-reference systems in North American Indian languages. In Haiman, John & Munro, Pamela (eds.) Switch reference and universal grammar, 151–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1989. The case split and pronominal arguments in Choctaw. In Marácz, László & Muysken, Pieter (eds.) Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries, 117–141. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd. 2006. Clause fusion in Iatmul: From cleft sentences to highlighting constructions. Presented at a seminar at RCLT, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Keen, Sandra. 1983. Yukulta. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, Barry J. (eds.) Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 3, 190–304. Canberra: ANU Press & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1985. Kwaio grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kendall, Martha B. 1975. The /-k/, /-m/problem in Yavapai syntax. International Journal of American Linguistics 41, 1–9.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Rodney J. 1984. Semantic roles – the language speaker's categories (in Kala Lagaw Ya). Papers in Australian Linguistics 16, 153–170. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. 1943. Vepsän murteiden lauseopillinen tutkimus [A syntactic study of the dialects of Vepsä]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm (eds.) The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 265–307. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 11, 315–376.Google Scholar
Konow, Sten. 1909. The Tibeto-Burman family. Linguistic survey of India, vol. 3: Tibeto-Burman family, part 1, 1–13. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Kooyers, Orneal. 1974. Washkuk grammar sketch. Working Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 6, 5–74.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Laanest, Arvo. 1975. Sissejuhatus läänemeresoome keeltesse [Introduction to Balto-Finnic languages]. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1979. Some thoughts on Hokan with particular reference to Pomoan and Yuman. In Campbell, Lyle & Mithun, Marianne (eds.) The languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment, 592–649. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Langdon, Margaret & Pamela, Munro. 1979. Subject and (switch-)reference in Yuman. Folia Linguistica 13, 321–344.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. On the utility of the concepts of markedness and prototypes in understanding the development of morphological systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 66.4, 1149–1186.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2004. A grammar of Qiang with annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. Clause linking in Dulong-Rawang. Presented at RCLT, La Trobe University, 24 May 2006.Google Scholar
Larjavaara, Matti. 1991. Aspektuaalisen objektin synty. Virittäjä 95, 372–407.Google Scholar
Larsson, Lars-Gunnar. 1983. Studien zum Partitivgebrauch in den ostsee-finnischen Sprachen. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Lees, Aet. 2004. Partitive-accusative alternations in Balto-Finnic languages. The 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003/lees.pdf (9 pp.) (22 July 2008).Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott, & Heine, (eds.) vol. 1, 37–80.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2006. Clause linking in Toqabaqita. Presented at RCLT, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Long, Ralph B. 1965. The English ‘conjunctions’. American Speech 42, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert A. 1985. Sentences as combinations of clauses. In Shopen, (ed.) 234–286.Google Scholar
Lynch, John, Ross, Malcolm D. & Crowley, Terry. 2003. The Oceanic languages. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Lorna. 1988. Subordination in Tauya. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra (eds.) Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 227–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Lorna. 1990. A grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1973. The grammar of Lahu (University of California Publications in Linguistics). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen & Virginia, Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12/26 (Milan). [Reprinted in 1951 in his Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130–148. Paris: C. Klincksieck.]Google Scholar
Miller, Amy. 2001. A grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier. 1899. Sanskrit–English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1972. On case markers and complementizers. Working Papers on Language Universals 8, 151–152.Google Scholar
Nagano, Yasahiko. 2003. Cogtse Gyarong. In Thurgood, & LaPolla, (eds.) 469–489.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1990. Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nicklas, T. Dale. 1974. The elements of Choctaw. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Louise, Sadler. 2004. Nominal tense in cross-linguistic perspective. Language 80, 776–806.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 1996. Case markers and clause linkage: Towards a semantic typology. In Casad, Eugene (ed.) Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 693–712. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1957. The verb in Bilin. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19, 131–159.Google Scholar
Palmer, Leonard Robert. 1954. The Latin language. London: Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 2004. A construction grammar view of clause combining in Maa. Presented at 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Boston.Google Scholar
Plaisier, Heleen. 2006. A grammar of Lepcha. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Post, Mark. 2007. A grammar of Galo. Ph.D. dissertation, RCLT, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger. 1987. Structures and their functions in Usan, a Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2003. Morphosyntaxe de l'émérillon: Une langue tupi-guarani de Guyana française. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon II.Google Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2005. Le syncrétisme adpositions/subordonnants. Proposition de typologie syntaxique. In Bril, Isabelle & Rebuschi, Georges (eds.) Coordination et subordination: Typologie et modélisations (Faits de Langues 28), 204–217. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Rutgers, Roland. 1998. Yamphu. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Google Scholar
Sands, Kristina. 2000. Complement clauses and grammatical relations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Sands, Kristina & Campbell, Lyle. 2001. Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, R. M. W. & Onishi, Masayuki (eds.) Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 251–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharma, Suhnu Ram. 2001. A sketch of Rongpo grammar. In Nagano, Yasuhino & LaPolla, Randy (eds.) New research on Zhangzhung and related Himalayish languages (Bon Studies 3), 195–270. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 1985. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, 171–234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1988. Case and complementizer suffixes in Warlpiri. In Austin, Peter K. (ed.) Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, 205–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Solnit, David. 1997. Eastern Kayah Li: Grammar, texts, glossary. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Staalsen, Phil. 1965. Iatmul grammar sketch. Ms., SIL, Ukarumpa.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 1998. Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In Collins, Peter & Lee, David (eds.) The clause in English: In honour of Rodney Huddleston, 273–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tarmo, Tiiu. 1981. The direct object in Estonian. Fourth-year honours sub-thesis, Department of Linguistics, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Tauli, Valter. 1980. Eesti grammatika [A grammar of Estonian]. Uppsala: Finsk-ugriska institutionen.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Longacre, Robert E.. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Shopen, (ed.) 171–234.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.) 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2006. The temporal semantics of noun phrases: Evidence from Guaraní. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantico–pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.) Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, C. & Bernd, Heine (eds.) 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, vols. 1 & 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tuldava, Juhan. 1994. Estonian textbook. Bloomington, IN: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Tveite, Tor. 2004. The case of the object in Livonian: A corpus based study (Castrenianumin toimitteita 62). Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Department, Helsinki University.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward J. 2004. Ket. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar M. 2003. Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Vallauri, Edoardo Lombardi. 2004. Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17, 189–215.Google Scholar
Walsh, Michael. 1976. The Murinypata language of North-West Australia. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2005a. Kusunda grammar (a language isolate of Nepal). Kathmandu: National Foundation for the Development of Indigenous Nationalities.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2005b. Kusunda: A typological isolate in South Asia. In Yadava, Yogendra, Bhattarai, Govinda, Lohani, Ram Raj, Prasain, Balaram & Parajuli, Krisha (eds.) An overview of Kham-Magar languages and dialects: Contemporary issues in Nepalese linguistics, 375–396. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Google Scholar
Wendel, Thomas D. 1993. A preliminary grammar of Hanga Hundi. Masters thesis, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Werner, Heinrich. 1997a. Die ketische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Werner, Heinrich 1997b. Das Jugische (Sym-Ketische). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1891. Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Melanie. 1991. Djambarrpuyngu: A Yolngu variety of northern Australia. Ph.D. thesis, Sydney University.Google Scholar
Wilson, Patricia. 1980. Ambulas grammar. SIL, Ukarumpa.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1976. Switch-reference in Yuman languages. In Langdon, Margaret & Silver, Shirley (eds.) Hokan studies: The First Conference on Hokan Languages, 165–174. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 2002. I wonder what kind of construction that this example illustrates. In Beaver, David, Martinez, Luiz Castillas, Clark, Brady & Kaufman, Stefan (eds.) The construction of meaning, 219–248. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar