Cover not available

Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 44:3 (2020) ► pp.606–658

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

Possessive and non-identity relations in Turkic switch-reference

ORCiD logo with link | Leiden University
 | SOAS University of London
Published online: 19 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19061.bar
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of non-canonical patterns of switch-reference involving the converb in -(V)p in selected Turkic languages. This converb is usually described as a same-subject converb, but we show that it can conform to . 2012. The role of contextual restriction in reference-tracking. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar extended definition of “same-subject” as expressing the identity of topic situations, rather than subject referents. In addition to tracking cross-clausal subject identity, -(V)p can be used when the possessor of the subject of one clause corefers with the subject of another clause and when the events expressed by the two clauses are in a close temporal and/or causal relationship. Based on Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva. 2019. Possessors in switch-reference. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1), 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, we argue that the role of possessors in Turkic switch-reference is captured by lexically specified conditions licensing the use of -(V)p when two subjects are in a possessive relation. Finally, we suggest that both types of non-canonical switch-reference can be seen as ensuring discourse continuity.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Converbial structures
  • 3.Same-subject constructions
    • 3.1Old Turkic
    • 3.2Eastern Turkic
    • 3.3Western Turkic
  • 4.Different-subject constructions
    • 4.1Different-subject constructions and clausal linking
    • 4.2Languages with marginal different-subject constructions
    • 4.3Possessive relations between different subjects
  • 5.Licensing conditions of Turkic switch-reference
    • 5.1Licensing conditions
    • 5.2Part-whole relations and action continuity
    • 5.3Alienable possession as participant continuity
  • 6.Summary and other issues
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (108)
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Irina Nikolaeva. 2013. Descriptive typology and linguistic theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2004. Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anetshofer, Helga. 2005. Temporale Satzverbindungen in altosmanischen Prosatexten. Mit einer Teiledition aus Behcetü’l-Hada’iq (1303 und 1429), Muqaddime-i Qutbed din (1433) und Ferec ba’de ş-şidde (1451) (Turcologica 57). Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aydemir, İbrahim Ahmet. 2009. Konverbien im Tuwinischen: Eine Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung des Altai-Dialekts. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva. 2019. Possessors in switch-reference. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 4(1), 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Possessives and relational nouns. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.21, 1109–1130. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berta, Árpád. 1996. Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-Türkischen. Wies baden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodrogligeti, András. 2003. Academic reference grammar of Modern Literary Uzbek. 21 vols. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Zeljko & Serkan Şener. 2014. The Turkish NP. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on noun phrase structure and reference, 102–140. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brendemoen, Bernt & Éva Ágnes Csató. 1987. A syntactic analysis of Turkish gerundial clauses with subject control. In Hendrik E. Boeschoten & Ludo Th. Verhoeven (eds.), Studies on Modern Turkish: Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics, 121–135. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 1997. Binding theory and switch-reference. In Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), Atomism and binding, 31–49. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buğday, Korkut. 1999. Osmanisch: Einführung in die Grundlagen der Literatursprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor. 1996. Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1983. Switch-reference in Huichol: A typological study. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 17–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 141. 265–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Ágnes & Lars Johanson. 1992. On gerundial syntax in Turkic. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46(2/3). 133–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Sousa, Hilário. 2016. Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 55–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drimba, Vladimir. 1973. Syntaxe comane. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 195–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erdal, Marcel. 1998. Old Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 138–157. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. 1986. Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In Dan I. Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ermolaeva, M. B. 2016. Podležaščee v raznosub″ektnyx konstrukcijax s deepričastiem na -p v kirgizskom jazyke i mišarskom dialekte tatarskogo jazyka. [Subjects in constructions with the p-converb in Kyrghyz and Mišar Tatar]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(1). 417–427.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Wiebke Ramm. 2008. Editor’s introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text, 1–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederich, Michael. 2012. Uyghurisch Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gadžieva, Ninel’ Z. & Boris Aleksandrovič Serebrennikov. 1986. Sravnitelʹno-istoričeskaja grammatika Tjurkskix jazuikov: Sintaksis. [Comparative grammar of the Turkic languages: Syntax]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Balkız Öztürk. 2019. Conditions on prominent internal possessors in Turkish. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 163–195. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V. 2015. Tjurkskie konverby i serializacija: Sintaksis, semantika, grammatikalizacija. [Turkic converbs and serialization: Syntax, semantics, grammaticalization]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graščenkov, Pavel V. & Marina B. Ermolaeva. 2015. O dvojstvennoj prirode tjurkskix kon verbov. [On the dual nature of Turkic converbs]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta 91. 42–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, John & Pamela Munro. 1983. Introduction. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, ix–xv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 1–55. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hazai, György. 1973. Das Osmanisch-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert: Untersuchungen an den Transkriptionstexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsány. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hebert, Raymond J. & Nicholas Poppe. 1963. Kirghiz manual. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imart, Guy. 1981. Le kirghiz (Turk d’Asie Centrale Soviétique): Description d’une langue de littérisation recente. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irmer, Matthias. 2011. Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving underspecification in discourse interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isxakov, Fazyl G. & Aleksandr A. Pal′mbax. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka: Fonetika I morfologija [Grammar of Tuvan: Phonetics and morphology]. Moscow: Izdatel′stovo vostočnij literatury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1992. Periodische Kettensätze im Türkischen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 821. 201–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. On Turkic converb clauses. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 313–347. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. The history of Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 81–125. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahle, David & Hadley Wickham. 2013. Ggmap: Spatial visualization with ggplot2. The R Journal 5(1). 144–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2013. Deconstructing switch-reference. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(3). 767–826. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerslake, Celia. 1998. Ottoman Turkish. In Lars Johanson & Éva Á. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 179–202. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2017. Possession and partitives. In Hans Burkhardt, Johanna Seibt, Guido Imaguire & Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (eds.), Handbook of mereology, 440–444. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreutel, Richard F. 1965. Osmanisch-Türkische Chrestomathie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krueger, John R. 1961. Chuvash manual: Introduction, grammar, reader and vocabulary. Vol.71 (Uralic and Altaic Series). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice & Nicole Delbecque. 1998. The possessive dative in Romance and Germanic languages. In Willy Van Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds.), The dative: Volume 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies, 29–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28(3). 279–333. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Event-internal modifiers: Semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 475–510. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James Robert. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mawkanuli, Talant. 2005. Jungar Tuvan texts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Bloomington Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKenzie, Andrew. 2007. Non-canonical switch-reference and situation semantics. In Amy Rose Deal (ed.), Proceedings of SULA 4: Semantics of under-represented languages in the Americas, 159–170. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Subject domain restriction and reference-tracking. Proceedings of SALT 201. 269–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The role of contextual restriction in reference-tracking. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menges, Karl H. 1995. The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies. 2nd, revised edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1993. ‘‘Switch-reference”: Clause combining in Central Pomo. International Journal of American Linguistics 59(2). 119–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 2016. Chickasaw switch-reference revisited. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 377–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. Some typological parameters of converbs. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds, 97–136. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevskaja, Irina. 1988. Deepričastie na -p kak komponent osložnennogo i složnogo predloženija v šorskom jazyke. [Converbs in -p in simple and complex sentences in Shor]. In Maiia I. Čeremisina, Elena K. Shamina & L′udmila A. Shamina (eds.), Komponenty predloženija (na materiale jazykov raznyx sistem). [Sentence components (based on the languages of different structure)], 154–169. Novosibirsk: IIFiF SOAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina. 1998. Subject valency of Shor gerunds. In Lars Johanson (ed.), The Mainz meeting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 3–6, 1994, 234–243. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Christoph Schroeder, Gerd Hentschel & Winfried Boeder (eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond, 275–294. Oldenburg: BIS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Converbs as depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz, 191–200. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1983. Switch-reference in the Northeast Caucasus. In John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar, 245–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, András Bárány & Oliver Bond. 2019. Towards a typology of prominent internal possessors. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 1–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina & Andrew Spencer. 2019. Mixed categories: The morphosyntax of nominal modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 2018. Connecting the typology and semantics of nominal possession: Alienability splits and the morphology-semantics interface. Morphology 281. 99–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ótott-Kovács, Eszter. 2015. The syntax of non-finite clauses in Kazakh. Szeged: University of Szeged PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan. 2016. Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 1821. 88–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2007. Contact in the prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and genetic perspectives. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1997. Genitives: A case study. In Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 464–470. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn & Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 67–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pazelʹskaja, Anna G. & Andrej B. Šluinskij. 2007. Obstojatelʹstvennye predloženija. [Adverbial clauses]. In Ekaterina A. Lyutikova, Konstantin I. Kazenin, Sergej G. Tatevosov & V. D. Solovjev (eds.), Mišarskij dialekt tatarzkogo jazyka: Očerki po sintaks isu i semantike. [The Mišar dialect of Tatar: Essays on syntax and semantics], 38–83. Kazan: Magarif.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petrova, Tujana. 2008. Kratkij rusko-jakutskij slovarʹ. [A concise Russian-Yakut dictionary]. Yakutsk: Bičik, Republic of Sakha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2013. Switch-reference or coordination?: A quantitative approach to clause linkage in Lakota. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2). 153–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Róna-Tas, András. 1991. An introduction to Turkology. Szeged: Attila József University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2019. Prominent internal possessors in Bashkir. In András Bárány, Oliver Bond & Irina Nikolaeva (eds.), Prominent internal possessors, 198–227. Oxford: Ox ford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph. 2004. Depiktive im Sprachvergleich Deutsch-Türkisch: Eine kontrastivtypologische Analyse. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A. 2012. The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area: A diachronic and areal account. Lingua 122(4). 356–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 201. 461–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tekin, Talat. 1968. A grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive linguistics 18(4). 523–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turan, Fikret. 1996. Old Anatolian Turkish syntactic structure. Cambridge: Harvard University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Converbs in Old Anatolian Turkish: Amorpho-syntactic approach. Folia Orientalia 341. 175–181.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Adverbs and adverbial constructions in Old Anatolian Turkish. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, Elizaveta I. & Feliks A. Litvin (eds.). 1986. Strukturnye tipy sintetičeskix polipredikat ivnyx konstrukcij v jazykax raznyx sistem. [Structural types of polypredicative sen tences with synthetic verbal form in languages of different typology]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1998. Defining converbs. In Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 273–282. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik. 2016. Switch reference: An overview. In Rik van Gijn & Jeremy Hammond (eds.), Switch reference 2.0, 1–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vikner, Carl & Per Anker Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2). 191–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Gabain, Annemarie. 1974. Alttürkische Grammatik. 3rd edn. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Derived coordination: A minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1988. Switch-reference in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Form, function and problems of identity. In Peter Austin (ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, 141–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ylikoski, Jussi. 2003. Defining non-finites: Action nominals, converbs and infinitives. SKY Journal of Linguistics 161. 185–237.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zieme, Peter. 1999/2000. Review of Alttürkische Handschriften by Dieter Maue. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 161. 294–297.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue