Demonstrative verbs: A typology of verbal manner deixis
-
Valérie Guérin
Abstract
This article presents a typological characterization of a class of demonstratives so far neglected in the literature: demonstrative verbs expressing manner. First, the morphological characteristics and syntactic behaviors of these demonstratives are examined to illustrate their verbal properties and to justify categorizing them as verbs. Next, their exophoric and endophoric roles in narratives and interactions are described. As their discourse usages closely replicate that of nominal demonstratives, we argue that demonstrative verbs belong to the class of demonstratives and propose to integrate them in a general typology of demonstratives.
Acknowledgments
I am very much indebted to the following people who generously shared their data and intuitions with me: Azeb Amha, Bob Dixon, Ekaterina Gruzdeva, Deborah Hill, Florian Lionnet, Knut Olawsky, Simon Overall, Liz Pearce, and Fernando Zúñiga. I am also grateful to Sasha Aikhenvald, Ekkehard König, and three anonymous reviewers whose judicious comments significantly improved the quality of this article. All remaining errors are my own.
Abbreviations
For the sake of uniformity and consistency, the glosses have been standardized.
1/2/3 1st/2nd/3rd person a=agent-lite argument of canonical transitive verb; acc=accusative; add=additive; aff=affirmative; ana=anaphoric; art=article; asp=aspect; ass=assertive; caus=causative; clf=classifier; concess=concessive; cnt=continuous; comp=complementizer; cond=conditional; cop=copula; csvn=completive subjective verbal noun; cvb=converb; dat=dative; decl=declarative; deic=deictic; dem=demonstrative; det=determiner; dist=distal; distpast=distant past; ds=different subject; du=dual; dub=dubitative; dur=durative; emph=emphatic; erg=ergative; ev=epenthetic vowel; f=feminine; fin=finite; foc=focus; frs=frustrative; fut=future; futnr=future nominalizer; gen=genitive; ifut=immediate future; imm=immediacy; imp=imperative; incp=inceptive; ind=indicative; infl:a=class A person infection; infl:d=class D person infection; ins=instrumental; intens=intensifier; intr=intransitive; ints=intensive aktionsart; ipd=impeditive; ipfv=imperfective; irr=irrealis; lk=linker; lmt=limiter; loc=locative; m=masculine; med=medial, intermediate; modif=modifier; neg=negative; nf=non-future; nmlz=nominalizer; nom=nominative; nrld=non-realized; ns=non-singular; nt=neutral modality; obj=object; part=particle; perl=perlative; pfv=perfective; pl=plural; poss=possessive; pred=predicative; pres=presentative; pro=pronoun; prox=proximal; prs=present; pst=past; ptcp=participle; purp=purposive; q=question marker; r=realis; redup=reduplication; rel=relative; rempst=remote past; restr=restrictive; rhet=rhetoric; rm=remote; rs=realis subject; s=single argument of canonical intransitive verb; sbd=non-temporal subordinator; sbj=subject; seq=sequential; sg=singular; sim=simultaneous; spc=specifying; spec=speculative; ss=same subject; st=stative; sub=subordinate; svn=subjective verbal noun; top=topic; tr=transitive; uncert=uncertainty; v=verbalizer; ve=valency external participant; voc=vocative.;
Appendix A: List of languages used in this survey
18-language corpus of the present study.
| Language name | Language family | country | Main source |
| Aguaruna | Jivaroan | Peru | Overall (2007) |
| Aleut | Eskimo-Aleut | U.S.A. | Bergsland (1997) |
| Boumaa Fijian | Oceanic | Fiji | Dixon (1988) |
| Dyirbal | Pama-Nyungan | Australia | Dixon (1972) |
| Ju|’hoan | Juu (formerly Northern Khoisan) | Botswana, Namibia, and Angola | Dickens (no date), Lionnet (2012) |
| Kokota | Oceanic | Solomon Islands | Palmer (2009) |
| Longgu | Oceanic | Solomon Islands | Hill (2011) |
| Mapuche | Isolate | Chile/Argentina | Smeets (2008) |
| Mavea | Oceani | Vanuatu | Guérin (2013) |
| Mongolian | Altaic | Mongolia | Janhunen (2012) |
| Motuna | Papuan | Bougainville | Onishi (1994) |
| Nivkh | Isolate | Russia | Gruzdeva (2006) |
| Neve’ei | Oceanic | Vanuatu | Musgrave (2007) |
| South Efate | Oceanic | Vanuatu | Thieberger (2006) |
| Urarina | Isolate | Peru | Olawsky (2006) |
| Warrongo | Pama-Nyungan | Australia | Tsunoda (2011) |
| Wolaitta | Omotic | Ethiopia | Amha (2013) |
| Yurakaré | Isolate | Bolivia | van Gijn (2006) |
Manner demonstrative verbs (in various stage of grammaticalization) possibly also occur in the following languages:
Chinese (Sino-Tibetan; China)
Futuna (Polynesian; Territory of the Wallis and Futuna Islands)
Hup (Nadahup; Northern Amazon)
Khwe (Central Khoisan; Namibia)
Lewo, Lelepa, Sie, and Unua (Oceanic; Vanuatu)
Maale (Omotic; Ethiopia)
Rennell/Bellona (Oceanic; Solomon Islands)
Rundi (Bantu; Burundi)
Samoan (Polynesian; Samoa)
Shona (Bantu; Zimbabwe)
Xârâcùù (Oceanic; New Caledonia)
In Chinese, Chao (1968: 660–661) refers to three pro-verbs, namely nahg ‘do that’, tzemme ‘do this’, and nemme ‘do that’, as in bye nemme ia! ‘don’t do that!’. The last two forms are identical with the pro-adverbs ‘thus’ and ‘how’ respectively (Chao 1968: 658). These pro-verbs seem to us to function like MDVs.
Khwe (Central Khoisan) has a set of three manner adverbs meaning ‘thus’ that are composed of a nominal demonstrative and the verb ‘be so’ but Kilian-Hatz (2008: 215) treats them as non-derived adverbs, suggesting that their verbal quality could be fossilized.
Maale (Omotic) has a form hááɗɗi-ke ‘be like this’ derived from the nominal demonstrative há ‘near speaker’, the inchoative áɗ, and the non-verbal declarative affix -ke (Amha 2001: 108, 139, 153, 268), suggesting that this form is predicative but not verbal. The demonstrative há can also take the verbalizer -ídd and the converb -í to form híddí ‘having done like this’, híddéto ‘if one does like this’, where é is the perfective and to the conditional, and hammaíddé ‘be/do like this’ with -mma (a diminutive) and 2sg.impé (Amha 2001: 257). Híddí and its derivatives look like promising candidates for the status of MDVs.
Based on Güldemann’s (2008: 317–328) account of the origin of quotative indexes in simulative markers, we expect to find MDVs in several other (African) languages, such as -ti ‘be/do like this’ in Shona, a Bantu language of Zimbabwe (Güldemann 2008: 318), and its cognates thi in Zulu (Güldemann 2008: 347). Rundi has two MDVs: tya anf tyo (Meeussen 1959: 149). They are defective verbs as they can only appear in one tense/aspect/mood specification (which is reminiscent of the tense restriction in Urarina), and are always used in combination with another verb (a constraint reminiscent of Neve’ei). Meeussen (1959: 149) translates tya as ‘faire comme ceci, comme moi’ which we translate as ‘do like this, like me’ and tyo as ‘faire comme cela, comme toi, comme tel autre’ (‘do like that, like you, like someone else’). Given Meeussen’s translation, we can assume that tya refers to an action performed or mimicked by the speaker. The functions of the second form are unclear. Hagège (2008: 20–21) interprets tyo as ‘do so (as said)’ as opposed to tya ‘do so (as gestured)’. Manner adverbs are derived from these defective verbs by the addition of an affix (like in Urarina and Nivkh): gútya ‘comme ceci; like this’ and gútyo ‘comme cela; like that’ (Meeussen 1959: 159).
In Unua (Oceanic), the verb mre ‘be like’ combines with the proximal/distal demonstrative suffixes -n/-g (Pearce 2015), forming mre-n ‘be like this’ in (A-1a) and mro-g ‘be like that’ in (A-1b). Note that the demonstrative suffixes -n/-g in Unua attach only to the verb mre ‘be like’ and to no other word, a restriction reminiscent of Aguaruna and Urarina.
Unua
| Norrom | ngare | re-b-mej | re-b-rang | go | nexse | rate | i-mre-n. |
| yam | prox.pl | 3pl-irr-die | 3pl-irr-dry | and | name | 3pl | 3sg-be.like-this |
‘These yams would die and dry out and their names were like this.’ (Pearce 2015)
| Go | i-mrebe | arres | se | xai | re-m-se-vase | rre | b-i-mro-g? |
| and | 3sg-how | person | gen | 2sg | 3pl-rel-neg-do | neg | irr-3sg-be.like-that |
‘And why do your people not do likewise?’ [Mark 2:18] (Pearce 2015)
The suffixes are analyzed as object markers (Pearce 2015), they act as the argument of the verb and cannot co-occur with an overt NP (Elizabeth Pearce, personal communication). Analyzing the verbs mre-n and mro-g as MDV would make Unua the exception in our sample as the only language without intransitive DVs.
Appendix B: Questionnaire
Building on Dixon’s (2003: 104) demonstrative questionnaire, we propose below a series of questions to address when describing manner demonstrative verbs in a particular language.
How verbal are demonstrative verbs?
Are demonstrative verbs derived or underived? If derived,
What are the formal similarities (in the morphology and the syntax) between the demonstrative verbs and nominal demonstratives? And locational demonstratives? And manner adverb? And …
Do all the nominal/adverbial demonstratives form predicates? Or are MDVs derived from a subset of demonstratives?
How specialized is the verbalizing suffix that MDV require to be made verbal? Any idiosyncrasies in the derivation?
How different /similar are MDVs from verbal predicates?
Do they share morphosyntactic features with lexical verbs? Any restrictions?
Is their distribution similar to/different from lexical verbs?
How different/similar are MDVs from non-verbal predicates? (i.e., constituent order, negation, tense restrictions, etc.)
Do demonstrative verbs refer to actions/events? Or to place, objects, persons?
If referring to place, objects, persons:
Are they identificational in function? Locational?
If referring to actions/events:
Do they express similarity? Quantity? Any other feature or combination of features?
Do the features that demonstrative verbs express vary if the action is actual or mimicked?
Does the form of the MDV vary if the action is actual or mimicked?
Is there a specific DV for exophoric and endophoric uses? Anaphoric and cataphoric uses?
What are the discourse functions of the demonstrative verb(s)?
Framing (anaphoric and cataphoric use)? Introducing new topics? Reported speech? Alignment device? …
If there is more than one DV, do their functions overlap? Are they in complementary distribution?
Are MDVs reduced and grammaticalized to the point where they become a discourse particle or a coordinator?
Appendix C: Identifying manner demonstrative verbs: A case study
Lavukaleve, a Papuan language of the Solomon Islands, shares some but not all of the features defining demonstrative verbs. We review the data here.
A subset of deictics in Lavukaleve can take two derivational suffixes: -ri ‘presentative’ and -om/v/o ‘predicative’. The presentative suffix -ri can attach to the demonstrative modifier hoia ‘this’ to derive the pronominal hoiari ‘this one’ which serves as a sentential demonstrative (similar to French voilà): it is a single-word utterance, often accompanied by a gesture (Terrill 2003: 199, 203). The predicative suffix must be attached to the presentative one. It derives the predicate hoiariom ‘it is this one (masculine/neuter)’ from hoiari (Terrill 2003: 209, 211).
Of concern to us is the deictic aka ‘then, thus’ which is classified as a clause introducer in its underived form (Terrill 2003: 195), as exemplified in (C-1).
| Aka | Mofe | ne | Okali | honala | ta | hoka | ngoa-mal | hinala | Losiole-n |
| then | Mofe | and | Okali | prox | just | here.prox | stay-du | 3du.m | Losiole-loc |
‘Then Mofe and Okali stayed here at Losiolen.’ (Terrill 2003: 195)
When suffixed with -ri, the deictic takes on a spatial (i.e., exophoric) reference. Example (C-2) is uttered by the speaker showing someone how to do something.
In the following examples, the deictic acts as a textual anaphora. In the discourse preceding (C-3), the speaker told a sea eagle to go to one island, to take a stick, and to continue talking sticks:
| Aka-ri | sia-nun | sia-nun | sia-nun | hano [...] |
| then-pres | do-dur | do-dur | do-dur | then |
‘continue like that (i.e., continue to take sticks one by one) [...]’ (Terrill 2003: 206)
In the following example, the predicative suffix is added. The discourse function of this deictic is ambiguous and can be opening or closing a narrative.
| Foiga | aka-ri-om | fi | o’as-ne | kelea | ga | o-talu |
| dem | then-pres-pred | 3sg.n.foc | bush-perl | walk | sg.n.art | 3sg.poss-word |
| la | o-ve-e | o-lei | ||||
| sg.f.art | 3sg-go-nmlz | 3sg-exist |
‘This is how the story of the walk in the bush goes (lit., okay, it’s like that, the going of the walk in the bush).’ (Terrill 2003: 213)
Although the predicative akariom can be used as the sole predicate of a simple sentence as in (C-5), it is not a verb; it cannot take any verbal morphology (Terrill 2003: 241), a feature that is central to the definition of MDVs.
| Aka-ri-om | tin | fi |
| then-pres-pred | only | 3sg.n.foc |
‘It’s just like that.’ (Terrill 2003: 196)
MDVs in our corpus are related in large majority to other demonstratives. Aka ‘then, thus’ is treated on a par with locational demonstratives, although Terrill concedes, it does not refer to a location at all (Terrill 2003: 195). In terms of deictic reference, we do not have many examples at hand, but it seems that akariom cannot be used as exophoric deictic, which is one of the defining features of MDVs. Akari in (C-2) fulfills this role. Akariom would thus only be used as textual (i.e., anaphoric) deictic. The only feature that akariom shares with other MDVs investigated in this article is its discourse function as framer. In (C-4), akariom opens or ends a narrative. Thus, we see that akariom falls short of our definition of MDVs. Whether its verbal attributes are now fossilized remains to be investigated.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199279159.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. Speech reports: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Language at large: Essays on syntax and semantics, 290–326. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004206076.i-606.65Search in Google Scholar
Amha, Azeb. 2001. The Maale language (CNWS Publications 99). Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies, Universiteit Leiden.Search in Google Scholar
Amha, Azeb. 2013. Demonstratives and directionals in Wolaitta. Paper read at the weekly roundtable meeting, Language and Culture Research Centre, James Cook University, Cairns, 11 September 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Edward L. Keenan. 1985. Deixis. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Benton, Richard A. 1971. Pangasinan reference grammar. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bergsland, Knut. 1997. Aleut grammar. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska–Fairbanks.Search in Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66. 764–805.10.2307/414729Search in Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 2011. ‘Strict’ anadeixis, discourse deixis and text structuring. Language Sciences 33. 753–767.10.1016/j.langsci.2011.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1987. Serial verbs in Paamese. Studies in Language 11. 35–84.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198241355.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
De Fina, Anna & Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2012. Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139051255Search in Google Scholar
de Vries, Lourens. 2005. Towards a typology of tail-head linkage in Papuan languages. Studies in Language 29. 363–384.10.1075/sl.29.2.04vriSearch in Google Scholar
Dickens, Patrick. 2005. A concise grammar of Ju|’hoan, with a Ju|’hoan-English glossary and a subject index. Köln: Köppe.Search in Google Scholar
Dickens, Patrick. no date. Ju|’hoan grammar. Typescript.Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1997. Predicative demonstratives. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23(1). 72–82.10.3765/bls.v23i1.1282Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999a. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999b. The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3. 1–49.10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of north Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084987Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Copula clauses in Australian languages: A typological perspective. Anthropological Linguistics 44. 1–36.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. Demonstratives: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 27. 61–112.10.1075/sl.27.1.04dixSearch in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.) 2009, 1–55.10.1093/oso/9780199567225.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2012. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. 3: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). 2009. The semantics of clause linking: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199567225.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2003. Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79. 82–117.10.1353/lan.2003.0075Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1966. Deictic categories in the semantics of ‘come’. Foundations of Language 2. 219–227.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2010. Similitude: A conceptual category. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42. 117–142.10.1080/03740463.2010.521442Search in Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet M. 2003. Use of discourse marker like in interviews. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7. 365–377.10.1111/1467-9481.00229Search in Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2001. When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.92Search in Google Scholar
Gerner, Matthias. 2009. Deictic features of demonstratives: A typological survey with special reference to the Miao. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54. 43–90.10.1017/S0008413100001043Search in Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore A. 1998. Deixis and information packaging in Russian discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.50Search in Google Scholar
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 1998. Nivkh. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Gruzdeva, Ekaterina. 2006. ‘How far from origo?’ or what the distance means for Nivkh demonstrative reference. In Mickael Suominen, Antti Arppe, Anu Airola, Orvokki Heinämäki, Matti Miestamo, Urho Määttä, Jussi Niemi, Kari K. Pitkänen & Kaius Sinnemäki (eds.), A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday (Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19), 190–199. Turku: Linguistic Association of Finland. http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/sky2006special.shtmlSearch in Google Scholar
Guérin, Valérie. 2011. A grammar of Mavea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Guérin, Valérie. 2013. Demonstratives and directionals in Mavea. Paper read at the weekly roundtable meeting, Language and Culture Research Centre, James Cook University, Cairns, 13 November 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Guérin, Valérie. no date. Mavea data. Unpublished toolbox files.Search in Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211450Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199687305.013.5Search in Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2008. Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology 12. 1–44.10.1515/LITY.2008.031Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687.10.1353/lan.2010.0021Search in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613463Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. 1–29.10.1080/08351813.2012.646684Search in Google Scholar
Hill, Deborah. 2011. Longgu grammar. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara A. Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205–254. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.33.08himSearch in Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha A. 2012. Mongolian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/loall.19Search in Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 2008. A grammar of modern Khwe (Central Khoisan). Köln: Köppe.10.1075/slcs.110.10kilSearch in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2012. Le rôle des déictiques de manière dans le cadre d’une typologie de la déixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 107(1). 11–42.Search in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2015. Manner deixis as source of grammatical markers in Indo-European languages. In Carlotta Viti (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, 35–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.169.02konSearch in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. forthcoming. The deictic identification of similarity. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch5Search in Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian. 2012. Unusual grammar leads to unusual grammaticalization: Verbal demonstratives in the Juu languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California–Berkeley M.A. qualifying paper. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~Eflorianlionnet/papers/Lionnet_MApaper.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian. 2013. The typology of demonstratives clarified: Verbal demonstratives in Ju|’hoan. Paper read at the 10th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT 10), Universität Leipzig. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~florianlionnet/papers/Lionnet_ALT10-Leipzig2013.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian. 2014. Demonstrative and relative constructions in Ju: A diachronic account. In Tom Güldemann & Anne-Maria Fehn (eds.), Beyond ‘Khoisan’: Historical linguistic relations in the Kalahari Basin, 181–209. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.330.07lioSearch in Google Scholar
Lynch, John, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley. 2002. The Oceanic languages. Richmond: Curzon.Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, Lorna. 1990. A grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110846027Search in Google Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna. 2003. Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh: A contribution to a typology of polysynthesis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.57Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 2003. Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36. 33–63.10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3Search in Google Scholar
Meeussen, A. E. 1959. Essai de grammaire rundi. Tervuren: Musée Royal du Congo Belge.Search in Google Scholar
Musgrave, Jill. 2007. A grammar of Neve’ei, Vanuatu (Pacific Linguistics 587). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Galina A. Otaina. 2013. A syntax of the Nivkh language: The Amur dialect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.139Search in Google Scholar
Olawsky, Knut J. 2002. Urarina texts. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Olawsky, Knut J. 2006. A grammar of Urarina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892932Search in Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 1994. A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Otaina, Galina A. 1978. Kačestvennye glagoly v nivxskom jazyke. [Nivkh verbs denoting quality and property.] Moskva: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2007. A grammar of Aguaruna. Bundoora: La Trobe University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Aguaruna. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.) 2009, 167–192.10.1093/oso/9780199567225.003.0007Search in Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2013. Demonstratives and directionals in Aguaruna. Paper read at the weekly roundtable meeting, Language and Culture Research Centre, James Cook University, Cairns, 31 July 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2014. Clause chaining, switch reference and nominalisations in Aguaruna (Jivaroan). In van Gijn et al. (eds.) 2014, 309–340.10.1075/tsl.105.11oveSearch in Google Scholar
Palmer, Bill. 2009. Kokota grammar. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pearce, Elizabeth. 2015. A grammar of Unua (Pacific Linguistics 647). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614516590Search in Google Scholar
Poppe, Nikolaus. 1951. Khalkha-mongolische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner.10.2307/2718194Search in Google Scholar
Rehg, Kenneth. 1981. Ponapean reference grammar. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii.10.1515/9780824844257Search in Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Timothy Shopen. 2007. Parts-of-speech systems. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn., Vol. 1: Clause structure, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619427.001Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.21832/9781847692849-020Search in Google Scholar
Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/oso/9780198236931.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41. 31–57.10.1080/08351810701691123Search in Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2012. Sequence organization. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 191–209. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118325001.ch10Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Alex D’Arcy. 2004. He’s like, she’s like: The quotative system in Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8. 493–514.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00271.xSearch in Google Scholar
Terraschke, Agnes. 2013. A classification system for describing quotative content. Journal of Pragmatics 47. 59–74.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.015Search in Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110923964Search in Google Scholar
Thieberger, Nicholas. 2006. A grammar of South Efate: An oceanic language of Vanuatu. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Robert E. Longacre & Shin Ja J. Hwang. 2007. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn., Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 237–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.005Search in Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2011. A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110238778Search in Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla & Helmar Gust. 2014. Similarity demonstratives. Lingua 149. 74–93.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.003Search in Google Scholar
van Gijn, Erik. 2006. A grammar of Yurakaré. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik. 2014. Repeated dependent clauses in Yurakaré. In van Gijn et al. (eds.) 2014, 291–308.10.1075/tsl.105.10vanSearch in Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds.). 2014. Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.105Search in Google Scholar
van Kleef, Sjaak. 1988. Tail-head linkage in Siroi. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 20. 147–156.Search in Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes 6. 107–135.10.1080/01690969108406940Search in Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Mapudungun, el habla mapuche: Introducción a la lengua mapuche, con notas comparativas y un CD. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
