Complement clauses in Caucasian Urum

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–66. Malden, MA: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199207831.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bailyn, John F. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Böhm, Stefanie. 2013. Differentielle Objektmarkierung im Türkischen und Urum. Universität Bielefeld: MA dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

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

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840579Search in Google Scholar

Csató, Éva Á. 2010. Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz, 107–122. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199297870.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds). 2006. Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199297870.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4. 333–377.10.1075/sl.4.3.03givSearch in Google Scholar

Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203340769Search in Google Scholar

Grenoble, Lenore A. 2013. The syntax and pragmatics of Tungusic revisited. In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols, 357–382. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.104.16greSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject ‘want’ complements: Economic vs. iconic motivation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 26. 41–69.Search in Google Scholar

Höfler, Concha Maria. 2016. Group belonging beyond language boundaries: Language, religion and identity in the multilingual Greek community of Georgia. STUF/Language Typology and Universals 69. 213–234.10.1515/stuf-2016-0010Search in Google Scholar

Johanson, Lars. 2006. Turkic language contacts in a typology of code interaction. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Lars Johanson (eds.), Turkic languages in contact, 4–26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02096-4Search in Google Scholar

Johanson, Lars. 2009. Modals in Turkic. In Björn Hansen & Ferdinand de Haan (eds.), Modals in the languages of Europe, 487–510. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219210Search in Google Scholar

Kaysina, Inna. 2013. The adoption of Russian conjunctions in Udmurt. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 4. 131–144.10.12697/jeful.2013.4.2.07Search in Google Scholar

Kerslake, Celia. 2007. Alternative subordination strategies in Turkish. In Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein & Lukas Pietsch (eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse, 231–258. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.5.15kerSearch in Google Scholar

Kesici, Esra. 2013. Ki-clauses in Turkish: A paratactic analysis. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 21. Available online at http://hdl.handle.net/10150/271012.Search in Google Scholar

Kock Kobaidze, Manana. 1999. Minority identity and identity maintenance in Georgia. Working Papers, Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics 47. 149–168.Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121. 1297–1313.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.008Search in Google Scholar

Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809873Search in Google Scholar

Menz, Astrid. 1999. Gagausische Syntax: Eine Studie zum kontaktinduzierten Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Menz, Astrid. 2000. Analytic modal constructions in Gagauz. In Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds.), Proceedings of the IXth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (Turcologica 46), 151–158. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Menz, Astrid. 2001. Gagauz right-branching propositions introduced by the element ani. Turkic Languages 5. 234–244.Search in Google Scholar

Menz, Astrid. 2002. The dialects of Erzurum: Some remarks on adverbial clauses. Turkic Languages 6. 199–214.Search in Google Scholar

Menz, Astrid. 2006. On complex sentences in Gagauz. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Lars Johanson (eds.), Turkic languages in contact, 139–151. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Moisidi, Violeta, Nutsa Tsetereli, Stefanie Böhm, Johanna Lorenz & Stavros Skopeteas. 2016. Urum data collection, Version 2.0. (data collected, transcribed, and translated by Violeta Moisidi; data glossed by Nutsa Tsetereli; supervised by Stefanie Böhm and Johanna Lorenz; corpus design by Stavros Skopeteas). Bielefeld: Bielefeld University (corpus resource: TLA, Donated Corpora, XTYP Lab).Search in Google Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 2007. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 2: Complex constructions, 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.002Search in Google Scholar

Ries, Veronika, Stavros Skopeteas, Emrah Turan & Kristin Nahrmann. 2014. Discovering the prehistory of multilingual situations in the lexicon. An empirical study on the Caucasian Urum vocabulary. Linguistik online 64. 7–28.10.13092/lo.64.1373Search in Google Scholar

Sella-Mazi, Eleni & Violeta Moisidi. 2011. Sociolinguistic study on the areas of use of Urum and the attitude of the speakers towards the language. Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld.Search in Google Scholar

Skopeteas, Stavros. 2011. Language documentation in repeated-observations design: Directionality of syntactic projections in Urum. In Peter Austin, Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, 257–266. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Search in Google Scholar

Skopeteas, Stavros. 2013. The Caucasian Urums and the Urum language. Journal of Endangered Languages: Turkic Languages 3. 333–364.Search in Google Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Valk, Pelin O. & Ad Backus. 2013. Syntactic change in an immigrant language: From non-finite to finite subordinate clauses in Turkish. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 4. 7–29.10.12697/jeful.2013.4.2.01Search in Google Scholar

Wade, Terence. 2011. A comprehensive Russian grammar, vol. 3. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Wheatley, Jonathan. 2006. Defusing conflict in Tsalka district of Georgia: Migration, international intervention and the role of the state. European Centre for Minority Issues, Working Paper 36.Search in Google Scholar