Cover not available

Review published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 42:2 (2018) ► pp.474–486

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Book review

Baker, Mark. 2015. Case

Reviewed by
 | Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Published online: 6 June 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16059.has
References (26)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 593–642. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. & William Croft. 2017. Lexical categories: Legacy, lacuna, and opportunity for functionalists and formalists. Annual Review of Linguistics, 31, pp. 179–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4). 614–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare & Christopher D. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, 13–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62(4). 808–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Handschuh, Corinna. 2014. A typology of marked-S languages. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 1]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 21. ([URL])
. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1). 79–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Lingustic Typology 15(3). 535–567.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Comparative syntax. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Dan Siddiqi (eds.), The Routledge handbook of syntax, 490–508. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Christa König. 2010. On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences 32(1). 87–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 881. 227–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press ([URL]).
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 1181. 203–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120(7). 1610–1636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Shinya Ito. 2007. Re-constructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(4). 273–292.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1980. Relational grammar. In Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Current approaches to syntax, 195–229. New York: Academic Press [Syntax and Semantics 13]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2015. Control. In Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax: Theory and analysis, vol. 11, 412–446. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK), 42].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva. 2012. Referential effects on the expression of three-participant events across languages: An introduction in memory of Anna Siewierska. Linguistic Discovery 10(3). 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Anouba, Acha Arnaud & Huang Dechun
2023. Risk-Taking and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Intention in Côte d’Ivoire SMEs: Moderating Role of Government Subsidy policy. International Journal of Science and Business ► pp. 126 ff. DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin
2019. Ergativity and depth of analysis. Rhema :4, 2019 ► pp. 108 ff. DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin
2021. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics 59:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue