Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Abraham, W. (2006). Passivization and typology: Form vs. function. A confined survey into the research status quo. In: Abraham, W. & Leisiö, L., eds., Passivization and Typology: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Adamou, E. (2014). L’antipassif en ixcatèque. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 109.1: 373–396.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. (2000). Transitivity in Tariana. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. (2017). Polysynthetic structures of Lowland Amazonia. In: Fortescue, M.; Mithun, M. & Evans, N., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 284–311.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. & Dixon, R. M. W. (1999). Other small families and isolates. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–384.Google Scholar

Aissen, J. (1997). On the syntax of obviation. Language 73.4: 705–750.Google Scholar

Aissen, J. (1999). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17.4: 673–711.Google Scholar

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.3: 435–483.Google Scholar

Aldridge, E. (2004). Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Aldridge, E. (2012). Antipassive and ergativity in Tagalog. Lingua 122: 192–203.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. (2010). On the morpho-syntax of (anti-)causative verbs. In: Rappaport Hovav, M., Doron, E. & Sichel, I., eds., Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–203.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. & Doron, E. (2012). The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48: 1–34.Google Scholar

Alsina, À. (1992). On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23.4: 517–555.Google Scholar

Alsina, À. & Mchombo, S. (1993). Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. In: Mchombo, S., ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 17–45.Google Scholar

Amberber, M. (2000). Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 312–332.Google Scholar

Amberber, M. (2002). Verb Classes and Transitivity in Amharic. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Andersen, S. & Andersen, T. D. (2005). Semantic analysis of the Moronene verbal prefix moN-. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 243–278.Google Scholar

Anderson, N. & Wade, M. (1988). Ergativity and control in Folopa. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 19.1–2: 1–16.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. (2000). Voice and being core: Evidence from (Eastern) Indonesian languages. Paper read at Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 7 in Amsterdam, May.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. (2002). Voice systems in the Austronesian languages of Nusantara: Typology, symmetricality and undergoer orientation. Paper read at the 10th National Symposium of the Indonesian Linguistics Society, Bali, July.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. (2009). The core-oblique distinction and core index in some Austronesian languages of Indonesia. Keynote paper presented at the International Association of Linguistic Typology VI conference, Padang, Indonesia, 21–25 July 2005.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. & Kosmas, J. (2005). Passive without passive morphology? Evidence from Manggarai. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 87–117.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. & Manning, C. (1998). Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective. In: Butt, M. & King, T. H., eds., Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 45–69.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. & Manning, C. (2008). Voice and grammatical relations in Indonesian: A new perspective. In: Austin, P. & Musgrave, S., eds., Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 45–69.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. & Ross, M. (2005). Introduction. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Arka, I. W. & Wouk, F. (2014). Voice-related constructions in the Austronesian languages of Flores. In: Arka, I. W. & Indrawati, N. L. K. M., eds., Argument Realisations and Related Constructions in Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics, pp. 313–333.Google Scholar

Arkadiev, P. & Letuchiy, A. (2009). The syntax and semantics of event structure and Adyghe causatives. Ms., Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Arnott, D. W. (1970). The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, R. E. & Kumari, T. C. (1997). Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Aspillera, P. (1969). Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs. Rutland, VT: Tuttle.Google Scholar

Atoyebi, J. D. (2015). Valency classes in Yorùbá. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 299–325.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (1981). A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (1982). Transitivity and cognate objects in Australian languages. In: Thompson, S. & Hopper, P., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 15: Studies in Transitivity. New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–47.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (1997). Causatives and applicatives in Australian Aboriginal languages. In: Matsumura, K. and Hayashi, T., eds., The Dative and Related Phenomena. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo, pp. 165–225.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (2001). Verbs, valence and voice in Balinese, Sasak and Sumbawan. La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics 11.3: 47–71.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (2005). Causative and applicative constructions in Australian Aboriginal languages. Ms., University of London. Available online at hrelp.org/aboutus/staff/peter_austin/AustinCausatives.pdf.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (2011). A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Ms., University of London. Available online at academia.edu/2491078/A_Grammar_of_Diyari_South_Australia.Google Scholar

Austin, P. (2012). Too many nasal verbs: Dialectal variation in the voice system of Sasak. NUSA: Linguistic Studies of Languages in and around Indonesia 54: 29–46. Available online at http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/bitstream/10108/71804/2/nusa5403.pdf.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, M. (1999). Body parts, incorporation, and argument structure. In: Payne, D. & Barshi, I., eds., External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar

Barber, E. (1975). Voice – Beyond the passive. In: Cogen, C., Thompson, H., Thurgood, G., Whistler, K. & Wright, J., eds., Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 16–24.Google Scholar

Beck, D. (2009). A taxonomy and typology of Lushootseed valency-increasing suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 75.4: 533–569.Google Scholar

Bell, S. (1983). Advancements and ascensions in Cebuano. In: Perlmutter, D., ed., Studies in Relational Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–218.Google Scholar

Benton, R. (1967). An Introduction to the Trukese Language for Speakers of English. Honolulu: Pacific and Asian Linguistics Institute, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Bickel, B. (2011). Grammatical relations typology. In: Song, J. J., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 399–444.Google Scholar

Bickel, B. & Gaenszle, M. (2015). First person objects, antipassives, and the political history of the Southern Kirant. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2.1: 63–86.Google Scholar

Bickel, B. & Zúñiga, F. (2017). The ‘word’ in polysynthetic languages: phonological and syntactic challenges. In: Fortescue, M., Mithun, M. & Evans, N., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 158–185.Google Scholar

Biggs, A. (2014). Passive variation in the dialects of Northwest British English. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Bittner, M. (1987). On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 53.2: 194–231.Google Scholar

Bittner, M. (1994). Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Blake, F. R. (1925). A Grammar of the Tagalog Language, the Chief Native Idiom of the Philippine Islands. New Haven, CT: The American Oriental Society.Google Scholar

Blevins, J. P. (2003). Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39.3: 473–520.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1917). Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1957). Eastern Ojibwa. Grammatical Sketch, Texts and Word List. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1962). The Menomini Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Blust, R. (2002). Notes on the history of ‘focus’ in Austronesian languages. In: Wouk, F. & Ross, M., eds., The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 63–78.Google Scholar

Blust, R. (2003). Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42.2: 438–478.Google Scholar

Boas, H. (2003). Towards a lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. Available online at sites.la.utexas.edu/hcb/files/2011/02/Boas2003a_Locative_Alternation.pdf.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. & Branigan, P. (2006). Eccentric agreement and multiple case-checking. In: Johns, A., Massam, D. & Ndayiragije, J., eds., Ergativity: Emerging Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 47–77.Google Scholar

Bok-Bennema, R. (1991). Case and Agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar

Borgman, D. (1991). Dicionário Sanumá. Boa Vista: Missão Evangélica da Amazônia.Google Scholar

Borsley, R., Tallerman, M. & Willis, D. (2007). The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bosse, S., Bruening, B. & Yamada, M. (2012). Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30.4: 1185–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung: differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Bossong, G. (1991). Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In: Wanner, D. & Kibbee, D., eds., New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143–170.Google Scholar

Bossong, G. (1998). Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues d’Europe. In: Feuillet, J., ed., Actance et valence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 193–258.Google Scholar

Bowden, J. (2001). Taba: Description of a South Halmahera language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L. (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21.2: 147–185.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In: Boume, G., Kraemer, I. & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar

Bril, I. (1997). Split ergativity in the Nêlêmwa language. In: Van der Hulst, H., Klamer, M., Odé, C. & Stokhof, W., eds., Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of Austronesian Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 377–394.Google Scholar

Bromley, M. (1981). A Grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Brown, D., Chumakina, M. & Corbett, G., eds. (2013). Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bruce, L. (1984). The Alambak Language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. & Tran, T. (2015). The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese. Lingua 165.A: 133–172.Google Scholar

Bryant, M. G. (1999). Aspects of Tirmaga grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar

Bugenhagen, R. D. (1995). A Grammar of Mangap-Mbula: An Austronesian Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Burch, L. (1980). Ute Reference Grammar. Ignacio, CO: Ute Press.Google Scholar

Chandralal, D. (2010). Sinhala. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chapman, S. & Derbyshire, D. C. (1991). Paumari. In: Derbyshire, D. & Pullum, G., eds., Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 161–352.Google Scholar

Charney, J. O. (1993). A Grammar of Comanche. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (1976). On the subject of two passives in Indonesian. In: Li, C., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 57–98Google Scholar

Chung, S. (1977). Maori as an accusative language. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 86.3: 355–370.Google Scholar

Churchward, C. M. (1953). Tongan Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Clayre, B. (2005). Kelabitic languages and the fate of ‘focus’: Evidence from the Kerayan. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 17–57.Google Scholar

Cole, P., Hermon, G. & Yanti, (2008). Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua 118.10: 1500–1553.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1973). The ergative: Variations on a theme. Lingua 32.2: 239–253.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1975). Causatives and universal grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society 1974: 1–32.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions. In: Shibatani, M., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–312.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1985 ). Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In: Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309–348.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1986). Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In: Eckman, F., Moravcsik, E. & Wirth, J., eds., Markedness. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1988). Passive and voice. In: Shibatani, M. ed., Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 9–23.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (2000). Valency-changing derivations in Tsez. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M., eds., (1993). Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Comrie, B., Khalilov, M. & Khalilova, Z. (2015). Valency and valency classes in Bezhta. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 541–570.Google Scholar

Cooreman, A. (1994). A functional typology of antipassives. In: Fox, B. & Hopper, P., eds., Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–88.Google Scholar

Cooreman, A., Fox, B. & Givón, T. (1984). The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8.1: 1–34.Google Scholar

Cowell, A. & Moss, A. (2008). The Arapaho Language. Boulder: The University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar

Craig, C. & Hale, K. (1988). Relational preverbs in some languages of the Americas: Typological and historical perspectives. Language 64.2: 312–344.Google Scholar

Cranmer, D. (1976). Derived Intransitivity. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. (2007). Impersonal and anti-impersonal constructions: a typological approach. Ms., University of Lyon.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. (2010). Benefactive applicative periphrases: A typological approach. In: Zúñiga, F. & Kittilä, S., eds., Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–69.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. (2014). P-lability and radical P-alignment. Linguistics 52.4: 911–944.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. (2015). Valency properties of Mandinka verbs. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–260.Google Scholar

Creissels, D. & Nouguier-Voisin, S. (2008). Valency-changing operations in Wolof and the notion of co-participation. In: König, E. & Gast, V., eds., Reciprocal and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explanations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–305.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (1994). Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. In: Fox, B. & Hopper, P., eds., Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–117.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2007). Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 31.2: 409–430.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W., Shyldkrot, H. B.-Z. & Kemmer, S. (1987). Diachronic semantic processes in the middle voice. In: Giacalone Ramat, A., Carruba, O. & Bernini, G., eds. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–192.Google Scholar

Crowley, T. (1990). Beach-la-Mar to Bislama: The Emergence of a National Language in Vanuatu. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Curnow, T. J. (1997). A grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer). An indigenous language of South-Western Colombia. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Dahlstrom, A. (1986). Plains Cree morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar

Dahlstrom, A. (2009). OBJ_Θ without OBJ: a typology of Meskwaki objects. In Butt, M. & King, T. H., eds., Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 222–239.Google Scholar

Daniel, M. Maisak, T. & Merdanova, S. (2012). Causatives in Agul. In: Suihkonen, P., Comrie, B. & Solovyev, V., eds., Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Crosslinguistic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–114.Google Scholar

Davies, W. (2005). The richness of Madurese voice. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar

Dayley, J. (1981). Voice and ergativity in Mayan languages. Journal of Mayan Linguistics 2: 3–82.Google Scholar

Dayley, J. (1989). Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

De Guzman, V. P. (1988). Ergative analysis for Philippine languages: An analysis. In: McGinn, R., ed., Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, OH: Ohio University Center for International Studies, pp. 323–345.Google Scholar

Derbyshire, D. (1985). Hixkaryana and Linguistic Typology. Arlington: SIL.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). A Grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language 55.1: 59–138.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1983). Nyawaygi. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B., eds., Handbook of Australian Languages 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 430–531.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (2000a). A-constructions and O-constructions in Jarawara. International Journal of American Linguistics 66.1: 22–56.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (2000b). A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–83.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (2004). The Jarawara Language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. (1997). A typology of argument-determined constructions. In: Bybee, J., Haiman, J. & Thompson, S., eds., Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 71–113.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. (2000). Introduction. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. (1999). Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. (2002). Voice in Tukang Besi and the Austronesian focus system. In: Wouk, F. & Ross, M., eds., The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 81–99.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. (2003). Morphological templates, headedness, and applicatives in Barupu. Oceanic Linguistics 42.1: 111–143.Google Scholar

Donohue, M. (2005). The Palu’e passive: From pragmatic construction to grammatical device. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 59–85.Google Scholar

Downing, A. (1996). The semantics of get-passives. In: Hasan, R., Cloran, C. & Butt, D., eds., Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–206.Google Scholar

Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3: 547–619.Google Scholar

Drapeau, L. (2014). Grammaire de la langue innue. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. (2007). Clause types. In: Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–275.Google Scholar

Dunn, M. J. (1999). A grammar of Chukchi. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. & Ochs, E. (1990). Genitive constructions and agency in Samoan discourse. Studies in Language 14: 1–23.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. (1993). Projecting indirect objects. The Linguistic Review 10: 211–263.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. (2007). A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

England, N. (1988). Mam voice. In: Shibatani, M., ed., Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 525–545.Google Scholar

Eriksen, P., Kittilä, S. & Kolehmainen, L. (2010). Linguistics of weather: cross-linguistic patterns of meteorological expression. Studies in Language 34.3: 565–601.Google Scholar

Evans, N. (1995). A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Evans, N. (2008). Reciprocal constructions: Towards a structural typology. In: König, E. & Gast, V., eds., Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33–103.Google Scholar

Evans, N., Gaby, A. & Nordlinger, R. (2007). Valency mismatches and the coding of reciprocity in Australian languages. Linguistic Typology 11.3: 541–597.Google Scholar

Evans, N., Levinson, S., Gaby, A. & Majid, A. (2011). Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. In: Evans, N., Gaby, A., Levinson, S. & Majid, A., eds., Reciprocals and Semantic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Evans, N.; Levinson, S.; Gaby, A. & Majid, A., eds., (2011). Reciprocals and Semantic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Everaert, M. (1986). The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Everett, D. (1986). Pirahã. In: Derbyshire, D. & Pullum, G., eds., Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 200–325.Google Scholar

Faltz, L. (1985). Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, S. (2012). Constructional effects of involuntary and inanimate agents: a cross-linguistics study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar

Filbeck, D. (1973). The passive in Thai. Anthropological Linguistics 15.1: 33–41.Google Scholar

Fleck, D. (2002). Causation in Matses (Panoan, Amazonian Peru). In: Shibatani, M. ed., The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 373–415.Google Scholar

Foley, W. (1986). The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foley, W. (1991). The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Foley, W. (2008). The place of Philippine languages in a typology of voice systems. In: Austin, P. & Musgrave, S., eds., Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 22–44.Google Scholar

Foley, W. & Van Valin, R. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foris, D. (1998). Sochiapan Chinantec GIVE: a window into clause structure. In: Newman, J., ed., The Linguistics of Giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–248.Google Scholar

Fortescue, M. (1984). West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Frajzyngier, Z. (1993). A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar

Frajzyngier, Z. (2000). Domains of point of view and coreferentiality: System interaction approach to the study of reflexives. In: Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., Reflexives: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–152.Google Scholar

Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., (2000a). Reflexives: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., (2000b). Reciprocals: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Franjieh, M. J. (2012). Possessive classifiers in North Ambrym, a language of Vanuatu: explorations in semantic classification. Ph.D. thesis, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar

Frantz, D. (2009). Blackfoot Grammar. 2nd edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gabelentz, H. C. von der. (1861). Über das Passivum. Eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung. Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 8: 450–546.Google Scholar

Gaby, A. (2008). Distinguishing reciprocals from reflexives in Kuuk Thaayorre. In: König, E. & Gast, V., eds., Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 259–288.Google Scholar

Gair, J. W. (1970). Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Gair, J. W. (1990). Subjects, cases and INFL in Sinhala. In: Verma, M. K. & Mohanan, K. P., eds., Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar

Galant, M. (2015). Changes in valence in San Andrés Yaá Zapotec. In: Operstein, N. & Sonnenschein, A., eds., Valency Changes in Zapotec. Synchrony, Diachrony, Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–236.Google Scholar

Geniušienė, E. (1987). The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Gerdts, D. (1984). A relational analysis of Halkomelem causals. In: Cook, E. D. & Gerdts, D., eds., The Syntax of Native American Languages. Syntax and Semantics 16. New York: Academic Press, pp. 169–204.Google Scholar

Gerdts, D. (2000). Combinatory restrictions on Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals. In: Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., Reciprocals: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–160.Google Scholar

Gerdts, D. (2004). Halkomelem directional applicatives. In: Brown, J. C. & Peterson, T., eds., 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, pp. 189–199.Google Scholar

Gerdts, D. & Hukari, T. (2000). Multiple antipassives in Halkomelem Salish. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26.2: 51–62.Google Scholar

Gerdts, D. & Hukari, T. (2006). The Halkomelem middle: A complex network of constructions. Anthropological Linguistics 48: 44–81.Google Scholar

Gerstner-Link, C. (1998). How transitive are habituals? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51.4: 327–534.Google Scholar

Gildea, S. (1994). Semantic and pragmatic inverse: ‘Inverse alignment’ and ‘inverse voice’ in Carib of Surinam. In: Givón, T., ed., Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187–230.Google Scholar

Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic typology of passive in the Cariban family. Paper read at the Workshop on Voice Systems in Diachrony: A Comparative Perspective, Università degli Studi di Pavia, September 2014. Available online from academia.edu as of 2017–08–01.Google Scholar

Gildea, S., Cáceres, N., Sapién, R. & Meira, S. (forthcoming). Antipassive and semantic classes of verbs in the Cariban family. In: Janic, K., Witzlack-Makarevich, A. & Creissels, D., eds., The Multifaceted Aspects of the Antipassive. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1972). Review of some problems in transitivity in Swahili. African Studies 31: 273–277.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1981). Typology and functional domains. Studies in Language 5.2: 163–193.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1994). Introduction. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In: Givón, T., ed., Voice and Inversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–44.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (2001). Syntax. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (2011). Ute Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. & Kawasha, B. (2006). Indiscrete grammatical relations: the Lunda passive. In: Tsunoda, T. & Kageyama, T., eds., Voice and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–42.Google Scholar

Givón, T. & Yang, L. (1994). The rise of the English GET-passive. In: Fox, B. & Hopper, P., eds., Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 119–149.Google Scholar

Golluscio, L. (2007). Morphological causatives and split intransitivity in Mapudungun. International Journal of American Linguistics 73.2: 209–238.Google Scholar

Good, J. (2007). Slouching toward deponency: A family of mismatches in the Bantu verb stem. In: Baerman, M., Corbett, G., Brown, D. & Hippisley, A., eds., Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 203–230.Google Scholar

Graczyk, R. (2007). A Grammar of Crow. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Green, G. (1974). Semantics and Syntactic Irregularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Grimes, C. E. (1991). The Buru language of eastern Indonesia. Ph.D. thesis. Australian National University.Google Scholar

Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R. & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65.2: 203–257.Google Scholar

Guerssel, M. (1986). On Berber Verbs of Change: A Study of Transitivity Alternations. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H. & Travis, L. (1992). Spec of IP and spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10.3: 375–414.Google Scholar

Guillaume, A. & Rose, F. (2010). Sociative causative markers in South American languages: a possible areal feature. In: Franck, F., ed., Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale. Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels. Lyon: ENS Éditions, pp. 383–402.Google Scholar

Gurevich, O. (2007). Steal me an apple: Version in Georgian. In: Hoyt, F., Seifert, N., Teodorescu, A. & White, J., eds., Texas Linguistic Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 125–144.Google Scholar

Haider, H. (2010). The Syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hale, K. (1972). Navajo linguistics. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar

Hale, K. (1973). A note on subject-object inversion in Navajo. In: Kachru, B., ed., Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 300–309.Google Scholar

Halle, M. & Hale, K. (1997). Chukchi transitive and antipassive constructions. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1987). Transitivity Alternations of the Anticausative Type. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln [Arbeitspapiere].Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1990). The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14.1: 25–72.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1993a). A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1993b). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In: Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M., eds., Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–120.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1994). Review of Grammatical Voice by M. H. Klaiman. Language 70.1: 176–178.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1999). External possession in a European areal perspective. In: Payne, D. & Barshi, I., eds., External Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–135.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In: Tomasello, M., ed., The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 211–242.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2007a). Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Reciprocal Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 2087–2115.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2007b). Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11.1: 119–132.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2007c). Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14.1: 79–102.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2011). On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15.3: 535–568.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M., Calude, A., Spagnol, M., Narrog, H. & Bamyaci, E. (2014). Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50.3: 587–625.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. & Müller-Bardey, T. (2004). Valency change. In: Booij, G., Lehmann, C., Mugdan, J. & Skopeteas, S., eds., Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1130–1145.Google Scholar

Haude, K. (2006). A grammar of Movima. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Haude, K. (2009). Hierarchical alignment in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 75.4: 513–532.Google Scholar

Haude, K. (2010). The intransitive basis of Movima clause structure. In: Gildea, S. & Queixalós, F., eds., Ergativity in Amazonia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 285–315.Google Scholar

Haude, K. (2014). Animacy and inverse in Movima: A corpus study. Anthropological Linguistics 56.3/4: 294–314.Google Scholar

Haude, K. & Zúñiga, F. (2016). Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54.3: 443–481.Google Scholar

Haviland, J. (1979). Guugu Yimidhirr. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B. J., eds., The Handbook of Australian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 26–180.Google Scholar

Heath, J. (1976). Antipassivization: a functional typology. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California, pp. 202–211.Google Scholar

Heath, J. (1999). A grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni: The Songhay of Gao, Mali. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar

Heine, B. (2000). Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages. In: Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., Reciprocals: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Heine, B. & König, C. (2010). On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences 32.1: 87–131.Google Scholar

Heine, B. & Miyashita, H. (2008). The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In: König, E. & Gast, V., eds., Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 169–224.Google Scholar

Hemmings, C. (2015). Kelabit voice: Philippine-type, Indonesian-type or something a bit different? Transactions of the Philological Society 113.3: 383–405.Google Scholar

Hemmings, C. (2016). The Kelabit language: Austronesian voice and syntactic typology. Ph.D. dissertation, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar

Henderson, E. J. A. (1976). Vestiges of morphology in modern standard Khasi. In: Jenner, P. N., Thompson, L. C. & Starosta, S., eds., Austroasiatic Studies. Honololu: University Press of Hawaii, pp. 477–522.Google Scholar

Hess, T. (1995). Lushootseed Reader with Introductory Grammar, Vol. 1. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.Google Scholar

Hetzron, R. (1969 ). The Verbal System of Southern Agaw. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Hewitt, G. (1989). Abkhaz. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Hewitt, S. (2002). The impersonal in Breton. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7: 1–39.Google Scholar

Hiirikoski, J. (2002). Transitive verbs of emotion in Finnish and English. In: Koskela, M. & Pilke, N., eds., Erikoiskielet ja käännösteoria, VAKKI-symposiumi XXII [Special Languages and Translation Theory, VAKKI Symposium XXII]. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, pp. 108–121.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. (2002). Voice in two northern Nulawesi languages. In: Wouk, F. & Ross, M., eds., The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 123–142.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In: Adelaar, A. & Himmelmann, N., eds., The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge, pp. 110–181.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. (2006). How to miss a paradigm or two: Multifunctional ma- in Tagalog. In: Ameka, F., Dench, A. & Evans, N., eds., Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 487–526.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. (2008). Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In: Musgrave, S. & Austin, P., eds., Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, C. (1963). A Grammar of the Margi Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hofling, C. A. (2011). Mopan Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar

Holvoet, A. (2015). Extended uses of morphological causatives in Latvian. In: Holvoet, A. & Nau, N., eds., Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–177.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251–299.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. (2002). Distributivity and reflexivity. In: Tang, S.-W. & Liu, C.-S. L., eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. & Tang, C.-C. J. (1991). The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In: Koster, J. & Reuland, E., eds., Long Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 263–282.Google Scholar

Iawata, S. (2008). Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ichihashi-Nakayama, K. (1996). The “applicative” in Hualapai: Its functions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7.2: 227–239.Google Scholar

Iemmolo, G. (2011). Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. Ph.D. dissertation, Università degli Studi di Pavia.Google Scholar

Iwata, S. (2008). Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jacques, G. (2014). Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug Rgyalrong. Lingua 138: 1–22.Google Scholar

Jacques, G. (forthcoming) Antipassive derivations in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan and their sources. In: Janic, K. Witzlack-Makarevich, A. & Creissels, D., eds., The Multifaceted Aspects of the Antipassive. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Janic, K. (2010). On the reflexive-antipassive polysemy: Typological convergence from unrelated languages. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 158–173.Google Scholar

Janic, K. (2016). L’antipassif dans les langues accusatives. Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Janssen, T. A. J. M. (1997). Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description. In: Newman, J., ed., The Linguistics of Giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 267–306.Google Scholar

Jaxontov, S. (1988). Resultative in Chinese. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–133.Google Scholar

Jelinek, E. & Demers, R. (1983). The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49.2: 167–185.Google Scholar

Jenny, M. (2010). Benefactive strategies in Thai. In: Zúñiga, F. & Kittilä, S., eds., Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 377–392.Google Scholar

Jeong, Y. (2007). Applicatives: Structure and Interpretation from a Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Josephs, L. (1975). Palauan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Kalectaca, M. (1978). Lessons in Hopi. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

Kalinina, E., Kolomatskiy, D. & Subodina, A. (2006). Transitivity increase markers interacting with verb semantics: evidence from Uralic languages. In: Kulikov, L., Malchukov, A. & De Swart, P., eds., Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 441–463.Google Scholar

Kalmár, I. (1979). The antipassive and grammatical relations in Eskimo. In: Plank, F., ed., Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 117–143.Google Scholar

Károly, S. (1982). Intransitive-transitive derivational suffixes in Hungarian. In: Kiefer, F., ed., Hungarian Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–243.Google Scholar

Katagiri, M. (2005). Voice, ergativity, and transitivity in Tagalog and other Philippine languages: A typological perspective. In: Arka, I. W. & Ross, M., eds., The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 153–174.Google Scholar

Kaufman, D. (2009). Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35.1: 1–49.Google Scholar

Kaufman, D. (2017). Lexical category and alignment in Austronesian. In: Coon, J., Massam, D. & Travis, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 589–628.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, I. (2007). Middle voice. Lingua 117: 1677–1714.Google Scholar

Kazenin, K. (1998). On patient demotion in Lak. In: Kulikov, L. & Vater, H., eds., Typology of Verbal Categories. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

Kazenin, K. (2001a). The passive voice. In: Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., eds., Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 899–916.Google Scholar

Kazenin, K. (2001b). Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In: Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., eds., Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 916–927.Google Scholar

Keen, S. (1983). Yukulta. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B., eds., Handbook of Australian Languages 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 190–304.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. (1985). Passive in the world’s languages. In: Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol I: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–281.Google Scholar

Keenan, E. & Dryer, M. (2007). Passive in the world’s languages. In: Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. I: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 325–361.Google Scholar

Kemmer, S. (1993). The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kemmer, S. (1994). Middle voice, transitivity, and the elaboration of events. In: Fox, B. & Hopper, P., eds., Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–228.Google Scholar

Keyser, S. J. & Roeper, T. (1984). On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15.3: 381–416.Google Scholar

Kibrik, A. (1981). Materialy k tipologii èrgativnosti: Bezhtinskij jazyk [Materials For a Typology of Ergativity: The Bezhta Language]. Moscow: Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR.Google Scholar

Kibrik, A. (1996). Transitivity in lexicon and grammar. In: Kibrik, A. E. ed., Godoberi. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 107–146.Google Scholar

Kibrik, A., Kodzasov, S. V., Olovjannikova, I. P. & Samedov, D. S. (1977). Opyt strukturnogo opisanija archinskogo jazyka [Structural Description of the Archi Language]. 4 vols. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar

Kimenyi, A. (1980). A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Kishimoto, H., Kageyama, T. & Sasaki, K. (2015). Valency classes in Japanese. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2: Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 765–805.Google Scholar

Kiss, K. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.2: 245–273.Google Scholar

Kisseberth, C. & Abasheikh, M. (1974). A case of systematic avoidance of homonyms. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 4: 107–124.Google Scholar

Kitano, H. (2006). Transitivity and pronominal clitic order in Kapampangan. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 17: 88–97.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. (2002). Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. (2005). Remarks on involuntary agent constructions. Word 56: 377–413.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. (2006). The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44.3: 569–612.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. (2007). A typology of tritransitives: alignment types and motivations. Linguistics 45.3: 455–508.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. (2009). Causative morphemes as non-valency increasing devices. Folia Linguistica 43.1: 67–94.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. (2013). Causative morphemes as de-transitivizing mechanisms. What do non-canonical instances reveal about causation and causativization? Folia Linguistica 47.1: 113–138.Google Scholar

Kittilä, S. & Zúñiga, F. (2014). Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles. In: Kittilä, S. & Zúñiga, F., eds., Advances in Research on Semantic Roles. Studies in Language 38.3: 437–462.Google Scholar

Kiyosawa, K. (2006). Applicatives in Salish languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Klaiman, M. H. (1988). Affectedness and control: A typology of voice systems. In: Shibatani, M., ed., Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–83.Google Scholar

Klaiman, M.H. (1991). Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Klamer, M. (1998). Kambera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kleinschmidt, S. P. (1851). Grammatik der grönländischen Sprache, mit theilweisem einschluss des Labradordialects. Berlin: G. Reimer.Google Scholar

Knott, J. (1995). The causative-passive correlation. In: Bennett, D., Bynon, T. & Hewitt, G., eds., Subject, Voice, and Ergativity: Selected Essays. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, pp. 53–59.Google Scholar

Koivisto, V. (1995). Itämerensuomen refleksiivit [Balto-Finnic Reflexives]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar

Kok, M. (2016). Varjon kieliopillistuminen: itse-saan paradigman rakenne ja merkitysenkehitys itäisessä itämerensuomessa [Grammaticalization of shadow. The paradigm structure and the development of the meaning of the word itse ‘self’ in the eastern Balto-Finnic languages]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar

Kozinsky, I., Nedjalkov, V. & Polinskaja, M. (1988). Antipassive in Chukchee: Oblique object, object incorporation, zero object. In: Shibatani, M., ed., Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 651–706.Google Scholar

Kozinsky, I. & Polinsky, M. (1993). Causee and patient in the causative of transitive: Coding conflict or doubling of grammatical relations. In: Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M., eds., Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–240.Google Scholar

König, E. (2001). Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In: Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., eds., Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 747–760.Google Scholar

König, E. (2001). Internal and external possessors. In: Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W., eds., Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 970–978.Google Scholar

König, E. & Gast, V., eds. (2008). Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

König, E. & Kokutani, S. (2006). Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44.2: 271–302.Google Scholar

König, E. & Siemund, P. (with Töpper, S.). (2013). Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In: Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M., eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Ch. 47. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at wals.info/chapter/47, accessed on 2017–06–29.Google Scholar

König, E. & Vezzosi, L. (2002). Reziproke Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In: Yoshida, M., ed., Grammatische Kategorien aus sprachhistorischer und typologischer Perspektive. Munich: Iudicium Verlag, pp. 205–219.Google Scholar

Kroeber, P. (1999). The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntax. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Kroeger, P. (1993). Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kroeger, P. (2005). Analyzing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kroskrity., P. V. (1985). A holistic understanding of Arizona Tewa passives. Language 61.2: 306–328Google Scholar

Krüger, K. W. (1846). Griechische Sprachlehre für Schulen. Berlin: K. W. Krüger.Google Scholar

Kučanda, D. (1987). ‘True’ reflexives and pseudo-reflexives with particular reference to Serbo-Croatian. In: Van der Auwera, J. & Goossens, L., eds., Ins and Outs of the Predication. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 77–92.Google Scholar

Kühner, R. (1904). [1834–1835] Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache ii: Satzlehre. Revised by Gerth, B.. Hannover: Hahn.Google Scholar

Kulikov, L. (2006). Passive and middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing the early Vedic passive paradigm. In: Abraham, W. & Leisiö, L., eds., Passivization and Typology: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 62–81.Google Scholar

Kulikov, L. (2011a). Voice typology. In: Song, J. J., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 368–398.Google Scholar

Kulikov, L. (2011b). Passive to anticausative through impersonalization. The case of Vedic and Indo-European. In: Malchukov, A. & Siewierska, A., eds., Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–254.Google Scholar

Kurebito, T. (2012). An outline of valency-reducing operations in Chukchi. In: Nakamura, W. & Kikusawa, R., eds., Objectivization and Subjectivization: A Typology of Voice Systems. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, pp. 177–189.Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, J. (1964). The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Laitinen, L. (1995). Nollapersoona [Zero-person]. Virittäjä 99: 337–357.Google Scholar

Laka, I. (1993). Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 149–172.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. (1971). Passive resistance. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 149–162.Google Scholar

LaPolla, R. (2000). Valency-changing derivations in Dulong/Rawang. In: Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A., eds., Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 282–311.Google Scholar

Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 33–91.Google Scholar

Laughren, M. (2002). Wanyi reflexive-reciprocal constructions. In: Allen, C., ed., Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Available online at www.als.asn.au, accessed on 2017–07–10.Google Scholar

Lee, I.-Q. (1997). Dative constructions and case theory in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, C. & Muysken, P. (1988). Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. (2015a). Valency classes in Yucatec Maya. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2: Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1407–1461.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. (2015b). Situation types, valency frames and operations. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2: Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1547–1595.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. & Verhoeven, E. (2006). Extraversive transitivization in Yucatec Maya and the nature of the applicative. In: Kulikov, L., Malchukov, A. & De Swart, P., eds., Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 465–493.Google Scholar

Leiss, E. (1992). Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Leroy, J. (2003). Grammaire du mankon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris 3.Google Scholar

Letuchiy, A. & Arkadiev, P. (forthcoming) Indirect antipassives in Circassian. In: Janic, K., Witzlack-Makarevich, A. & Creissels, D., eds., The Multifaceted Aspects of the Antipassive. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B. (2015). Verb classes within and across languages. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2: Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1627–1670.Google Scholar

Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levine, R. (1980). On the lexical origin of the Kwakwala passive. International Journal of American Linguistics 46.4: 240–258.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. (2011). Reciprocals in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. In: Evans, N., Gaby, A., Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A., eds., Reciprocals and Semantic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–194.Google Scholar

Liao, H. (2004). Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, F. (1983). A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: The University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, F. (1994). Reflexives and reciprocals. In: Asher, R. E., ed., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 3504–3509.Google Scholar

Liver, R. (2014). Le romanche des Grisons. In: Klump, A., Kramer, J. & Willems, A., eds., Manuel des langues romanes. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 413–446.Google Scholar

Liu, M. (2000). Reciprocal marking with deictic verbs “come” and “go” in Mandarin. In: Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., Reciprocals: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–132.Google Scholar

Lopez, C. (1937). Preliminary Study of Affixes in Tagalog. Manila: Bureau of Print.Google Scholar

Lopez, C. (1965). The Spanish overlay in Tagalog. Lingua 14: 467–504.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lyutikova, E. & Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A. (2002). What a causative construction can be used for? Paper presented at The Second International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG2), Helsinki, September 6–8.Google Scholar

MacDonald, L. (1990). A Grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

MacKay, C. (1999). A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar

Maclachlan, A. (1996). Aspects of ergativity in Tagalog. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar

Maienborn, C. (2007). Das Zustandspassiv: Grammatische Einordnung, Bildungsbeschränkungen, Interpretationsspielraum. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 35: 83–115.Google Scholar

Majid, A., Evans, N., Gaby, A. & Levinson, S. (2011). The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: An extensional approach. In: Evans, N., Gaby, A., Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A., eds., Reciprocals and Semantic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–60.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. (1993). Adversative constructions in Even in relation to passive and permissive. In: Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M., eds., Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 369–384.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. (2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Constraining co-variation. In: Kulikov, K., Malchukov, A. & De Swart, P., eds., Studies on Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 329–359.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. (2016). “Ambivalent voice”: Markedness effects in valency change. In: Kageyama, T. & Jacobsen, W., eds., Transitivity and Valency Alternations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 389–422.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. (2017). Markedness effects in applicative formation. In: Álvarez González, A. & Navarro, Í., eds., Verb Valency Changes: Theoretical and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–29.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds. (2015a). Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the Framework, and Case Studies from Africa and Eurasia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds. (2015b). Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2: Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M. & Comrie, B., eds. (2010). Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. & Ogawa, A. (2011). Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. A semantic map approach. In: Malchukov, A. & Siewierska, A., eds., Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–56.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. & Siewierska, A., eds. (2011). Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Maldonado, R. (2000). Conceptual distance and transitivity increase in Spanish reflexives. In: Frajzyngier, Z. & Curl, T., eds., Reflexives: Forms and Functions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–186.Google Scholar

Maldonado, R. & Nava, E. F. (2002). Tarascan causatives and event complexity. In: Shibatani, M., ed., The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–195.Google Scholar

Manley, T. (1972). Outline of Sre Structure. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In: Mchombo, S., ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–151.Google Scholar

Margetts, A. (1999). Valence and Transitivity in Saliba, an Oceanic Language of Papua New Guinea. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Margetts, A. (2008). Transitivity discord in some Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 47.1: 30–44.Google Scholar

Margetts, A. (2011). Transitivity in Saliba-Logea. Studies in Language 35.3: 650–675.Google Scholar

Margetts, A. & Austin, P. (2007). Three-participant events in the languages of the world: towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45.3: 393–451.Google Scholar

Marten, L., Kula, N. & Nhl, Thwala. (2007). Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105.3: 253–338.Google Scholar

Marten, L. & Kula, N. (2012). Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30.2: 237–253.Google Scholar

Masica, C. (1976). Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Maslova, E. (2008). Reflexive encoding of reciprocity: Cross-linguistic and language internal variation. In: König, E. & Gast, V., eds., Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–258.Google Scholar

Maslova, E. & Nedjalkov, V. (2013). Reciprocal constructions. In: Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M., eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Ch. 106. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at wals.info/chapter/106, accessed on 2017–06–29.Google Scholar

Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19.1: 153–197.Google Scholar

Massam, D. (2009). Noun incorporation: Essentials and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.4: 1076–1096.Google Scholar

McCloskey, J. (2007). The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25.4: 825–857.Google Scholar

McGinnis, M. (2005). UTAH at Merge: Evidence from multiple applicatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 183–200.Google Scholar

McGinnis, M. & Gerdts, D. (2004). A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. In: Burelle, S. & Somesfalean, S., eds., Proceedings of the 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference. Montréal: Université du Québec, pp. 154–165.Google Scholar

McKaughan, H. P. (1958). The Inflection and Syntax of Maranao Verbs. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar

Mchombo, S. (2004). The Syntax of Chichewa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, I. A. (1993). The inflectional category of voice: towards a more rigorous definition. In: Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M., eds., Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, I. A. (2006). Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Edited by Beck, David. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, I. A. & Xolodovič, A. A. (1970). K teorii grammatičeskogo zaloga [Towards a theory of grammatical voice]. Narody Azii i Afriki 4: 111–124.Google Scholar

Mettouchi, A. & Frajzyngier, Z. (2013). A previously unrecognized typological category: The state distinction in Kabyle (Berber). Linguistic Typology 17.1: 1–30.Google Scholar

Miestamo, M. (2014). Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey. In: Luraghi, S. & Huumo, T., eds., Partitive Cases and Related Categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 63–86.Google Scholar

Miestamo, M.; Tamm, A. & Wagner-Nagy, B., eds. (2015). Negation in Uralic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Miller, M. (2014). A comparative look at the major voice oppositions in Sama-Bajaw languages and Indonesian/Malay. In: Arka, I. W. & Indrawati, N. L. K. M., eds., Argument Realisations and Related Constructions in Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics, pp. 303–312.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60.4: 847–894.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. (1994). The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In: Fox, B. & Hopper, P., eds., Voice: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 247–277.Google Scholar

Miyaoka, O. (2012). A Grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik (CAY). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Miyaoka, O. (2015). Valency classes in Central Alaskan Yupik, an Eskimoan language. In: Malchukov, A. & Comrie, B., eds., Valency Classes in the World’s Languages, Vol. 2: Case Studies from Austronesia, the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical Outlook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1165–1204.Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. & Mohanan, T. (1998). Strong and weak projection: Lexical reflexives and reciprocals. In: Butt, M. & Geuder, W., eds., The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 165–194.Google Scholar

Morais-Barbosa, J., ed. (1967). Estudos linguísticos crioulos. Reedição de artigos publicados no Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. Lisbon: Academia Internacional da Cultura Portuguesa.Google Scholar

Morris, W. (1999). Emergent grammatical relations: Subjecthood in Kapampangan. In: Hiraga, M., Sinha, C. & Wilcox, S., eds., Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Bi-Annual ICLA Meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 299–311.Google Scholar

Mosel, U. (1991). Towards a typology of valency. In: Seiler, H. & Premper, W., eds., Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 240–251.Google Scholar

Mosel, U. & Hovdhaugen, E. (1992). Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar

Moyse-Faurie, C. (1983). Le drehu, langue de Lifou (Iles Loyauté). Paris: Selaf.Google Scholar

Munro, P. (1983). When ‘same’ is not ‘not different’. In: Haiman, J. & Munro, P., eds., Switch Reference and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–243.Google Scholar

Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, I. (1997). Evenki. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. (1988). Resultative, passive and perfect in German. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 411–432.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. (2007a). Overview of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Reciprocal Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–114.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. (2007b). Polysemy of reciprocal markers. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Reciprocal Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 231–333.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V., ed. (2007c). Reciprocal Constructions. With the assistance of Emma Geniušienė and Zlatka Guentchéva. 5 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. & Jaxontov, S. (1988). The typology of resultative constructions. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–62.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, I. & Nedjalkov, V. (1988). Stative, resultative, passive and perfect in Evenki. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–257.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, I. & Nedjalkov, V. (2007). Reciprocals, sociatives, comitatives, and assistives in Yakut. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Reciprocal Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1095–1162.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. & Otaina, G. A. (1988). Resultative and continuative in Nivkh. In: Nedjalkov, V., ed., Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V., Otaina, G. A. & Xolodovič, A. (1995). Morphological and lexical causatives in Nivkh. In: Bennett, D., Bynon, T. & Hewitt, G., eds., Subject, Voice and Ergativity. Selected Essays. London: University of London, pp. 60–80.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, V. & Sil’nickij, G. (1973). The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In: Kiefer, F., ed., Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

Ngonyani, D. (2000). The constituent structure of Kindendeule applicatives. In: Carstens, V. & Parkinson, F., eds., Advances in African Linguistics. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar

Ngonyani, D. & Githinji, P. (2006). The asymmetric nature of Bantu applicative constructions. Lingua 116: 31–63.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. (1992). Language Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. (1994a). Chechen. In: Smeets, R., ed., The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 4: Northeast Caucasian Languages. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, pp. 1–77.Google Scholar

Nichols, J. (1994b). Ingush. In: Smeets, R., ed., The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Vol. 4: Northeast Caucasian Languages. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, pp. 79–145.Google Scholar

Nichols, J., Peterson, D. & Barnes, J. (2004). Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8.2: 149–211.Google Scholar

Noonan, M. (1992). A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Norwood, C. (2002). Voice and valency alternations in Karo Batak. In: Wouk, F. & Ross, M., eds., The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 181–207.Google Scholar

Oehrle, R. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

O’Herin, B. (2001). Abaza applicatives. Language 77.3: 477–493.Google Scholar

Oshima, D. (2005). Morphological vs. phonological contrastive topic marking. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 41. No. 1. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Oshima, D. (2008). Semantic divergence of -(r)are: from a different perspective. In: Hudson, M. E., Sells, P. & Jun, S.-A., eds., Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 13. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 309–320.Google Scholar