Ahrens, Kathleen. 1990. ‘Re-examining the evidence for verbal agreement in Tangut’. Paper presented to the 23rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington, Oct. 5–7, 1990.
Bin, Bai, Jinbo, Shi, Xun, Lu, and Wende, Gao. 1989. Zhongguo minzu shi yanjiu (Studies on the history of the nationalities of China), 2. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.
Bauman, James J. 1974. ‘Pronominal verb morphology in Tibeto-Burman’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 1/1: 108–55.
Bauman, James J. 1975(a). ‘Pronouns and pronominal morphology in Tibeto-Burman’. Ph.D.dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Bauman, James J. 1975(b). ‘Pronominal roots in Tibeto-Burman’. Paper presented to the 8th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 24–26 October 1975, University of California at Berkeley.
Bauman, James J. 1979. ‘An historical perspective on ergativity in Tibeto-Burman’, In F., Plank (ed.), 1979: 419–33.
Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Princeton-Cambridge Studies in Chinese Linguistics, II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benedict, Paul K. 1983. ‘This and that in Tibeto-Burman/ST’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/2: 75–98.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1946. ‘Algonquian’, in Hoijer, Harry et al. ed. Linguistic structures of native America (Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, 6),. New York: 85–129.
Burling, Robbins. 1983. ‘The sal languages’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7/2: 1–32.
Caughley, Ross. 1982. The syntax and morphology of the verb in Chepang. [Pacific Linguistics Series B, No. 84]. Canberra: Australian National University.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. ‘Ergativity’, in Winifred P., Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Austin: University of Texas Press: 329–94.
Comrie, Bernard. 1980(a). ‘Morphology and word order reconstruction: problems and prospects’, in Jacek, Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17). The Hague: Mouton: 83–96.
Comrie, Bernard. 1980(b). ‘Inverse verb forms in Siberia: evidence from Chukcee, Koryak, and Kamchadal’, Folia Linguistica, 1/1: 61–74.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cowgill, Warren. 1963. ‘Universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology’, in Joseph H., Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press: 91–113.
Da Gupta, K. 1971. An introduction to the Nocte language. Shillong: North East Frontier Agency.
Qingxia, Dai, Juhuang, Liu, and Ailan, Fu. 1989. ‘Guangyu woguo Zang-Mian yuzu xishu fenlei wenti’ On the problem of genetic subgrouping within the Tibeto-Burman languages of China. Yunnan Minzu Yueyuan Yuebao, 3: 82–92.
Dayley, Jon P. 1981. ‘A Tzutujil grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
DeLancey, Scott. 1980(a). ‘The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 6/1: 83–101.
DeLancey, Scott. 1980(b). ‘Deictic categories in the Tibeto-Burman verb’. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981(a). ‘An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns’, Language, 57: 629–57.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981(b). ‘Parameters of empathy’, Journal of Linguistic Research (IULC), 1/3.
DeLancey, Scott. 1983. ‘Tangut and Tibeto-Burman morphology’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7/2: 100–8.
DeLancey, Scott. 1987. ‘The Sino-Tibetan languages’, in B., Comrie (ed.) The world's major languages. New York: Oxford University Press: 799–810.
DeLancey, Scott. 1988. ‘On the origins of the Kuki-Chin agreement prefixes’. Paper presented to the 21st International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 7–9 October 1988, Lund, Sweden.
DeLancey, Scott. 1989(a). ‘On the evolution of the Kham agreement paradigm’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11/2: 51–61.
DeLancey, Scott. 1989(b). ‘Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, LII, 2: 315–33.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity, Language, 55/1: 59–138.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge, London, and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Driem, George van. 1990(a). ‘An exploration of Proto-Kiranti verbal morphology’. Act Linguistica Hafniensia, 22/2: 27–48.
Driem, George van. 1990(b). ‘The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system’. MS, Rijks-universiteit Leiden.
Driem, George van. 1991. ‘Tangut verbal agreement and the patient category in Tibeto-Burman’, BSOAS, LIV, 3, 1991.
John W, Du Bois. 1985. ‘Competing motivations’, in John, Haiman (ed.),Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 343–65.
John W, Du Bois. 1987. ‘The discourse basis of ergativity’, Language 63/4: 805–55.
Ebert, Karen H. 1987. ‘Grammatical marking of speech act participants in Tibeto-Burman’, Journal of Pragmatics. 11/4: 473–82.
Ebert, Karen H. 1990. ‘On the evidence for the relationship Kiranti-Rung’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 13/1: 57–78.
Foley, William A and Robert D. Van, Valin Jr., 1977. ‘On the viability of the notion of “subject” in universal grammar’, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley: 293–320.
Genetti, Carol. 1987. ‘A contrastive study of the Dolakhali and Kathmandu Newari dialects’. Paper presented to the 20th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, 21–23 August 1987.
Giridhar, P. P. 1980. Angami grammar. (OIL Grammar Series-6). Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Givόn, Talmy. 1980. The drift away from ergativity: diachronic potentials in Sherpa, Folia Linguistica 1/1: 41–60.
Hwang-cherng, Gong. 1989. ‘Case postpositions in Tibeto-Burman languages’. A collection of essays in Tibetan studies, no. 2, 1–10. Taipei: Committee for Research on Tibet.
Grierson, George (ed.). 1909. Linguistic survey of India. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
Grimes, Joseph E.. (ed.). 1980. Papers on discourse. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hale, Austin and David E., Watters. 1973. ‘A survey of clause patterns’, in Austin, and Watters, (ed.), Clause, sentence, and discourse patterns in selected languages of Nepal, Part II. (SIL Pub. in Linguistics and Related Fields, no. 40). Kathmandu: SIL and Tribhuvan University Press: 175–249.
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1957. ‘Colloquial Chin as a pronominalized language’, BSOAS, xx, 2. 323–7.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. ‘Emergent grammar’, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley: 139–5.
Bufan, Huang. 1985. ‘Muyavu gaikuang’ (An overview of the Muya language). Minzu Yuwen. 3: 62–7.
Peng, Jin, Kerang, Tan, Aitang, Qu, and Xiangrong, Lin. 1958. ‘Jiarongyu Suomohua de yuyin he xingtai (xu)’ (The phonology and morphology of the Suomo dialect of Jiarong, part 2). Yuyan Yanjiu 3: 71–108.
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1975. ‘Subject and object agreement in the Tangut verb’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2/2: 29–32.
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1979. ‘Elements of ergativity and nominativity in Tangut’, in F., Plank (ed.) 1979: 263–77.
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1981. ‘Agreement of the verb in Tangut’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 6/1: 39–48.
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1982. ‘Once again on the agreement of the Tangut verb’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/1: 39–54.
Kepping, Ksenia B. 1989. ‘Xixiayu de jiegou’ (The structure of the Tangut language), in Bai. Shi., Lu and Gao, (ed.), 1989, 312–26.
Kibrik, A. E. 1985. ‘Toward a typology of ergativity’, in Nichols, and Woodbury, (ed.), 1985: 268–323.
Klimov, G. A. 1984. ‘On the expression of object relations in the ergative system’, in F., Plank (ed.), Objects: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press: 211–19.
Klimov, G. A. 1986. ‘On the notion of language type’, in Winifred P., Lehmann (ed.). Language typology 1985 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 47). John Benjamins: 105–10.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. ‘Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy’, in Charles N., Li (ed.). Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press: 417–44.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kwanten, Luc. 1982. ‘Verbal agreement in Tangut: a conflicting opinion’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 7/1: 55–62.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. ‘Topic, focus, and the grammar of spoken French.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1987. ‘Dulong and Proto-Tibeto-Burman’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 10/1: 1–42.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1988(a) ‘Topicalization and the question of lexical passives in Chinese’, Proceedings of the Third Annual Ohio State University Conference on Chinese Linguistics [13–14 May 1988], (ed.) Marjorie, K. M. Chan and Thomas, Ernst. Indiana University Linguistics Club: 170–88.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1988(b). ‘“Subject” and referent tracking: arguments for a discourse-based grammar of Chinese’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Linguistics [Fresno, 14–16 October 1988] vol. I, (ed.) Joseph, Emonds et al. Fresno: Dept. of Linguistics, California State University: 160–73.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1989. ‘Verb agreement, head-marking vs. dependent-marking, and the “deconstruction” of Tibeto-Burman morpho-syntax’, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [18–20 February 1989], (ed.) Kira, Hall et al. Berkeley: University of California: 356–65.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1990. ‘Grammatical relations in Chinese: synchronic and diachronic considerations.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
LaPolla, Randy J. 1991. ‘The primary object in Tibeto-Burman.’ Paper presented to the 2nd International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, 9–11 August 1991, Taipei, Taiwan. To appear in Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 14/2.
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e Stile, 20: 303–18.
Fanwen, Li. 1989. ‘Xixia xue de chansheng yu fazhan’ (The origin and development of Xixia (Tangut) studies), in Bai, , Shi, , Lu, , and Gao, , (ed.), 1989: 220–26.
Michailovsky, Byd. 1975. ‘Notes on the Kiranti verb (East Nepal)’,Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 2/2: 183–218.
Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. La langue hayu. Paris: Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique.
Morse, Robert H. 1965. ‘Syntactic frames for the Rvwang (Rawang) verb’. Lingua, 15: 338–69.
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 1983. ‘A historical study of the rGyarong verb system.’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Nagano, Yasuhiko. 1987. ‘Some ergative phenomena in Tibeto-Burman’,The Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 45: 53–74.
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. ‘Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar’, Language, 62: 56–119.
Nichols, Johanna. (forthcoming). The distribution of linguistic types in time and space. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nichols, Johanna and Anthony, Woodbury (ed.). 1985. Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge, London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tatsuo, Nishida. 1964–1966. Seikago no kengyu (Tangut studies). Tokyo: Zauho Kankokai.
Tatsuo., Nishida 1987. ‘A study of the structure of HsiHsia verb phrases’, The Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 45: 1–.
Plank, Franz (ed.). 1979. Ergativty: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.
Aitang., Qu 1984. ‘Jiarongyu gaikuang’ (A brief description of the Gyarong language), Minzu Yuwen, 2: 67–.
Guangrong, Ran, Shaoming, Li, and Xiyin., Zhou 1984. Qiangzu shi (The history of the Qiang nationality). Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.
Sapir, Edward. 1921/1945. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Shafer, Robert. 1955. ‘Classification of the Sino-Tibetan languages’, Word 11/1: 94–.
Shafer, Robert. 1966. Introduction to Sino-Tibetan, Part I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Linguistics Series, no. 22). New Jersey: Humanities Press, Inc.: 112–.
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. ‘Penutian: an assessment’, in Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, The languages of Native America: historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press: 650–. (cited in Nichols 1986).
Silverstein, Michael. 1981. ‘Case marking and the nature of language’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, I: 121–.
Sofronov, Mikhail Viktorovich. 1968. Grammatika tangutskogo yazyka. Moscow.
Stern, Theodore. 1963. ‘A provisional sketch of Sizang (Siyin) Chin’, Asia Major, n.s., 10/2: 22–.
Hongkai., Sun 1982. Dulongyu jianzhi (A sketch of the Dulong language). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Hongkai, Sun. 1983(a). ‘Chuanxi “inzu zoulang” diqu de yuyan (The languages of the ‘ethnic corridor’ region of western Sichuan), Research on the Peoples of the Southwest, no. 1: 429–.
Hongkai., Sun 1983(b). ‘Woguo Zang-Mianyu dongci de rencheng fanchou’ (The person category of verbs in the Tibeto-Burman languages of China). Minzu Yuwen, 2: 17–.
Hongkai, Sun 1985. ‘Liujiang liuyu de minzu yuyan ji qi xishu fen lei’ (The ethnic languages of the Six Rivers area and their genetic affiliations), Minzu Xuebao 3: 99–.
Hongkai, Sun. 1988. ‘Shilun Zhongguo jingnei Zang-Mian yu de puxi fenlei’ (A classification of Tibeto-Burman languages in China), in Eguchi, et al. (ed.), Languages and history in East Asia: a festschrift for Tatsuo Nishida on the occasion of his 60th birthday, vol. I. Kyoto: Shokado. 61–.
Hongkai, Sun. 1991. ‘Cong cihui bijao kan Xiaxiayu yu Zangmian yuzu Qiangyuzhi de guanxi’ (The relationship between Tangut and the Qiang branch of Tibeto-Burman from the point of view of shared lexical items), Minzu Yuwen,2, 1991, 1–.
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. ‘Language universals and discourse patterns.’ Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Linguistics [Fresno, 14– October 1988]. (Not published in Proceedings.)
Thurgood, Graham. 1984(a). ‘The “Rung” languages: a major new Tibeto-Burman subgroup’. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California: 338–.
Thurgood, Graham. 1984(b). ‘The “Rung” languages: notes on their morpho-syntax and subgrouping.’ Paper presented to the 17th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 7– September 1984, University of Oregon.
Thurgood, Graham. 1985. ‘Pronouns, verb agreement systems, and the subgrouping of Tibeto-Burman’, in Thurgood, et al. (ed.), Linguistics of the Sino-Tibetan area: the stale of the art. (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, no. 87.) Canberra: Australian National University.
Sueyoshi, Toba. 1980. ‘Participant focus in Khaling narratives’, in Grimes, (ed.), 1980: 157–.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. ‘Functionalism, anaphora and syntax.’ Review article of Kuno 1987, Studies in language 14/1: 169–.
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanishe Grammatik, III, 1. Heidelberg:Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Watters, David E. 1975. ‘The evolution of a Tibeto-Burman pronominal verb morphology: a case study from Kham (Nepal)’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2: 45–.
Watters, David E. 1978. ‘Speaker-hearer involvement in Kham’, in Grimes, J. E. (ed.), 1980: 1–.
Whistler, Kenneth W. 1985. ‘Focus, perspective, and inverse person marking in Nootkan’, in Nichols, and Woodbury, (ed.), 1985: 227–65.
Wolfenden, Stuart N. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman linguistic morphology. London: Royal Asiatic Society.