The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state

References

Abbott, Miriam. 1991. Macushi. In Desmond C Derbyshire & Geoffrey K Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 3 23–160. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Adibifar, Shirin. 2016. Persian. In Geoffrey Haig & Stefan Schnell (eds.), Multi-CAST (Multilingual corpus of annotated spoken texts). https://lac.uni-koeln.de/multicast-persian/ (accessed 08 January 2017).Search in Google Scholar

Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun. In John Du Bois, Lorraine Kumpf and William Ashby (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure. Grammar as architecture for function, 225–245. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.14.11arnSearch in Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 29(4). 875–915.10.1007/s11049-011-9147-zSearch in Google Scholar

Belloro, Valeria. 2007. Spanish clitic doubling: A study of the syntax-pragmatics interface. Buffalo, NY: University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4). 708–736.10.1353/lan.2003.0205Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd, 901–923. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2013. Patterns of alignment in verb agreement. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 15–36. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110331127.15Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, rev, 2nd edn., 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cuenit, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy ofScience.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare & Christopher Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints. Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, 13–32. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. [page numbers according to http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/pdfs/lfg01.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan & Sam A Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63(4). 741–782.10.2307/415717Search in Google Scholar

Charitonidis, Chariton. 2008. Polysynthetic tendencies in Modern Greek. Linguistik online 34(2). 17–40.10.13092/lo.34.525Search in Google Scholar

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

Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 69–93. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110331127.69Search in Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2011. Very atypical agreement indeed. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 153–160.10.1515/thli.2011.011Search in Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary & Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511993473Search in Google Scholar

De Cat, Cécile. 2005. French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua 115. 1195–1219.10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Dench, Alan. 1991. Panjyima. In R.M.W. Dixon and Barry Blake (eds.), The Handbook of Australian Languages, 124–243. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004. The Jarawara language of southern Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199270675.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110805543Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855.10.2307/415719Search in Google Scholar

Foley, William. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fuß, Erik. 2005. The rise of agreement, a formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.81Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 151–188. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 81–112. New York: Academic.10.1163/9789004368897_005Search in Google Scholar

Godfrey, John & Edward Holliman. 1993. Switchboard-1 Release 2 LDC97S62. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. Web download.Search in Google Scholar

Goldstein, David. 2014. Object agreement in Lycian. Historische Sprachforschung/Historical Linguistics 127(1). 101–124.10.13109/hisp.2014.127.1.101Search in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198614Search in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey. 2013. The subject/object asymmetry in bound person indexing: Diachronic and discourse considerations. Paper presented at the Workshop Agreement in Discourse, University of Bamberg, 1–2 February.Search in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.20Search in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey. forthcoming. Grammaticalization and inflectionalization in Iranian. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016a. Multi-CAST (Multilingual corpus of annotated spoken texts). https://lac.uni-koeln.de/multicast/(accessed 24 March 2016).Search in Google Scholar

Haig, Geoffrey & Stefan Schnell. 2016b. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92(3). 591–618.10.1353/lan.2016.0049Search in Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth. 1982. Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In Stephen M Schwartz (ed.), Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lothar Jagst (Series A 6), 217–314. Darwin: SIL, Australian Aborigines Branch.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Alice. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199246335.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 197–226. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110331127.197Search in Google Scholar

Hewitt, Brian G. 1989. Abkhaz. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Holmberg, Anders. 2009. Null subject parameters. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist Theory, 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511770784.003Search in Google Scholar

Iemmolo, Giorgio & Gerson Klumpp. 2014. Introduction. (special issue: Differential Object Marking: Theoretical and empirical issues). Linguistics 52(2). 271–279.10.1515/ling-2013-0062Search in Google Scholar

Jahani, Carina. 2015. Complex predicates and the issue of transitivity: The case of Southern Balochi. In Iván Szantó (ed.), From Aṣl to Zā’id: Essays in honour Éva M. Jeremiás, 79–105. Piliscsaba: The Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies.Search in Google Scholar

Jendraschek, Gerd. 2012. A grammar of Iatmul, vol. 1. 1–11. Regensburg: University of Regensburg Habilitationsschrift.Search in Google Scholar

Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.10.2307/j.ctvc770qqSearch in Google Scholar

Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar, vol. 3. Leiden & Boston: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i-2198Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Korn, Agnes. 2009. Western Iranian pronominal clitics. Orientalia Suecana 58. 159–171.Search in Google Scholar

Krapova, Iliyana & Guglielmo Cinque. 2008. Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. In Dalina Kallulli & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages, 257–287. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.130.15kraSearch in Google Scholar

Lynch, John. 2000. A grammar of Anejom. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies.Search in Google Scholar

MacKenzie, David. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

MacKenzie, David. 1962. Kurdish dialect studies, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

MacKenzie, David. 1979. Mani’s šāBUHRAGāN. BSOAS 42(3). 500–534.10.1017/S0041977X00135761Search in Google Scholar

Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz & Nader Jahangiri. 2005. Split ergative morphology in Hindu/ Urdu,Pashto, and Balochi languages. Journal of Humanities 12(3). 93–122.Search in Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2004. Functional perspectives on syntactic change. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 552–572. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756393.ch17Search in Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Adpositions and argument indexing in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Focus on ditransitive constructions. Orientalia Suecana 61. 187–198.Search in Google Scholar

Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Grammar, texts and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert.10.29091/9783954906314Search in Google Scholar

Paul, Daniel. 2011. A comparative dialectal description of Iranian Taleshi. Manchester: University of Manchester dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Payne, Thomas. 1993. The twins stories: Participant coding in Yagua narrative. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Popjes, Jack & Jo Popjes. 1986. Canela-Krahô. In Desmond C Derbyshire & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1 128–199. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Radatz, Hans-Ingo. 2008. Non-lexical core-arguments in Basque, German and Romance: How (and why) Spanish syntax is shifting towards clausal headmarking and morphological cross-reference. In Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance, 181–215. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.293.09radSearch in Google Scholar

Rasekh, Mohammad. 2014. Persian clitics: Doubling and agreement. Journal of Modern Languages 24(1). 16–33.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, John R. 2009. A study of Persian discourse structure. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensa.Search in Google Scholar

Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In Frederick Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Alexandra Teodorescu & Jessica White (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Linguistic Society IX: The morphosyntax of understudied languages, 265–285. Stanford, CA: CSLI. http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/TLS/TLS9-2005/TLS9_Samvelian_Pollet.pdf (accessed 10 October 2017)).Search in Google Scholar

Schnell, Stefan. 2012. Explaining formal variation in subjects and objects in Vera’a: The emergence of subject-TAM markers. Paper presented at the conference New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Asia – Pacific 2, Tokyo, 1–4 August.Search in Google Scholar

Schnell, Stefan & Danielle Barth. in press. Discourse motivations for pronominal and zero objects across registers in Vera’a. Language Variation and Change 30. 1.10.1017/S0954394518000054Search in Google Scholar

Schnell, Stefan & Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Assessing the relationship between object topicalisation and the grammaticalisation of object agreement. In Lauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (eds.), Selected papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013, 102–125. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/40959 (accessed 10 October 2017)).Search in Google Scholar

Seržant, Ilya A & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1228243Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. Folia Linguistica 33(1/2). 225–251.10.1515/flin.1999.33.1-2.225Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812729Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Verbal person marking. In Matthew S Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/102 (accessed 12 January 2017)).Search in Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2). 281–313.10.1515/ling-2013-0063Search in Google Scholar

Sjoberg, Andrée F. 1963. Uzbek structural grammar (Uralic and Altaic Series 18.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Van Gelder, Timothy & Robert F. Port. 1995. It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In Robert F Port & Timothy Van Gelder (eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition, 1–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756056.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 505–524. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1163/9789004368897_021Search in Google Scholar

Wegener, Claudia. 2008. A grammar of Savosavo, a Papuan language of the Solomon Islands. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Conditions on object agreement in Ruwund (Bantu). In Elena Benedicto (ed.), The UMass volume on indigenous languages (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20), 177–201. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar