The University of Manchester Research

Universal vs. language-specific influences on agentprominence and differential agent marking: a view fromDown Under

Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer

Citation for published version (APA):Schultze-Berndt, E. (2018). Universal vs. language-specific influences on agent prominence and differential agentmarking: a view from Down Under: Invited Keynote presentation. Paper presented at Second InternationalConference “Prominence in Language”, Cologne, Germany.

Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscriptor Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use thepublisher's definitive version.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by theauthors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Takedown policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s TakedownProcedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact uml.scholarlycommunications@manchester.ac.uk providingrelevant details, so we can investigate your claim.

Download date:02. Feb. 2021

7/18/18

1

Universal vs. language-specific influences on agent prominence and

differential agent marking: a view from Down Under

Eva Schultze-Berndt (University of Manchester)

Second International Conference “Prominence in Language” Universität zu Köln, 11 July 2018

Eva Schultze-BerndtUniversity of Manchester

OUTLINE

¡Differential argument marking and the notion of Prominence

¡ A quantitative discourse study on ”fluid” agent marking in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru (Australia)

¡ Implications for disentangling universal and language-specific factors in differential argument marking

7/18/18

2

Prominence …

¡ inherent

B02 - Split-Ergativität in TimaGerrit Dimmendaal, Birgit Hellwig, Tatjana Schnellinger, Gertrud Schneider-Blum

Prominence

Prominence …

¡ inherent

B02 - Split-Ergativität in TimaGerrit Dimmendaal, Birgit Hellwig, Tatjana Schnellinger, Gertrud Schneider-Blum

¡ established

Prominence

7/18/18

3

Linguistic Prominence …

inherent“How we identify the ante-cedent of an ambiguous pronoun has been a topic of interest in discourse anaphora studies. Crudely speaking, the most prominent entity is selected as the antecedent, but what determines the ranking of an entity as prominent is still an open question.”

(Özge et al. 2018, ICPL2)

established“In many languages speakers employ prosody to highlight new or unpredictable information, making it more prominent.”

(Röhr et al. 2018, ICPL2)

Linguistic Prominence …

inherent¡ hearer salience – known

and easily retrievable for the hearer

¡ “backward-looking”

¡ formally unmarked

¡ For referential phrases: preferred controller of coreference relationships

established¡ speaker salience – new, important,

not predictable, or something the speaker wants to put special emphasis on (Chiarcos 2011: 107-8)

¡ “forward-looking” (Centering Theory, Grosz et al. 1995)

¡ formally marked

7/18/18

4

Prominence in differential argument marking

established¡ Contrast between formally (case-)marked and

formally unmarked argument

SpanishPepe ve la película. [inanimate object]Pepe ve a la actriz. [human object]‘Pepe sees the film / the actress.’ (García García 2018: 211)

¡ Overt marking signals a mismatch between the case role and other properties of the referent or the construction (“unexpected role”)

Factors e.g.• person• animacy• definiteness• verb semantics

“Discourse Prominence” in “fluid” differential argument marking¡ In many languages, differential argument marking

appears to depend not (only) on inherent characteristics of the referential phrase or the predicate, but (also) on the status of the referential phrase in discourse.

RomanianPetru a vizitat un prieten. [less likely to become topic]Petru l-a vizitat pe un prieten. [more likely to become topic]‘Petru visited a friend.’ (Chiriacescu & von Heusinger 2010: 299)

Factors e.g.• Local sentence topic / focal constituent

• Discourse activation / persistence

7/18/18

5

“Discourse Prominence” in “fluid” differential argument marking

Issues addressed in current research:

¡ What is the evidence for the role of discourse prominence in differential argument marking?

¡ Which aspects of discourse prominence can play a role for what type of differential argument marking?¡ Verb agreement vs. case marking¡ Differential agent vs. object marking

¡ How do they interact with other, potentially competing factors?

Categorical splits conditioned by information structure

… appear to be rare

Agent marking¡ Categorical split in Motuna (Onishi 1994: 46,49) and possibly

in Tima (Schneider-Blum 2018)¡ topical As (1st position, no ergative-marking)¡ non-topical As (ergative-marked)

Object marking¡ Near-categorical split in Catalan (Iemmolo 2010: 251-2, citing

Escandell-Vidal 2007)¡ Dislocated topics when O: marked ¡ non-topical Os: unmarked (except pronouns and a few other classes)

Prominence

7/18/18

6

Information structure constructions as the diachronic source of case markers

Object marking¡ Dislocated topic construction >> object marking ¡ Evidence from diachronic development of DOM in Romance languages

with some cross-linguistic evidence; Iemmolo 2010: 259-260)

Agent marking¡ Demonstrative / pronoun (cleft construction) >> agent marking¡ Evidence from formal overlap in a number of Australian languages,

with some cross-linguistic evidence (McGregor 2008; 2017: 455)

¡ Focus marker >> agent marking¡ Evidence from formal overlap between ergative markers and

discourse/focus markers in some languages (Pensalfini 1999 on Jingulu, Gaby 2008, 2010 on Kuuk Thayorre, Chelliah 2009 on Meithei)

Prominence

e.g. for Fluid Agent marking (“optional ergativity”):¡ Focus / “new information” (e.g. Tournadre 1991, 1995; Onishi

1994: 46-49; Denwood 1999: 197; Malchukov 2008; Chelliah 2009; Hyslop 2010; Suter 2010; Meakins 2011; Verstraete 2010; Fauconnierand Verstraete 2014)

¡ Contrast (e.g. Tournadre 1991; Chelliah 2009; Jacques 2010)

¡ Topic/actor switch (e.g. Lidz 2011; Bond et al. 2013)

¡Unexpectedness of agent (e.g. McGregor 1992, 1998; Gaby 2008)

¡ Emphasis / Prominence (cross-cutting topic and focus) (e.g. LaPolla and Huang 2008: 76–88, Tournadre 1991, 1995; Meakins2009: 78, 2011: 228–236; Meakins and O'Shannessy 2010)

Information structure / status as one of multiple factors responsible for differential argument marking

Prominence

7/18/18

7

Information structure / status as one of multiple factors responsible for differential argument marking

¡The overall prediction that can be extracted from previous studies is that overt marking of A is more likely for focal than for topical As

¡BUT: most studies lack quantitative detail and/or clear definitions of information structure categories such as “focus” or “prominence”

Prominence

A quantitative discourse study: Agent marking in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru

Joint work with Felicity Meakins, University of Queensland

7/18/18

8

Jaminjung / NgaliwurruDiscourse Study

Jaminjung / Ngaliwurru

¨ Two named varieties; closely related ¨ Mirndi family (western branch) (Chadwick 1997; Green

& Nordlinger 2004; Harvey 2008)

¨ Area around Timber Creek, Northern Territory, Australia

¨ Speakers mostly elderly¨ Spoken corpora 1994-2016

Schultze-Berndt, E., C. Simard, M. Harvey, D. Hoffmann, and Jaminjung and Ngaliwurru communities, 2017. Annotated audiovisual corpus of Jaminjung and Ngaliwurru, 1994–2016. DOBES Archive http://dobes.mpi.nl/research/

Discourse Study

7/18/18

9

Agent marking in Jaminjung/Ngali¡ Obligatory cross-referencing on verbs for S

(intr) or A>P (tr)¡ Frequent omission of NP arguments¡ Three possibilities for case-marking of macro-

agents¡ Zero (relatively infrequent)¡ Ergative / Instrumental =ni ~ =di (default)¡ Ablative =ngunyi (infrequent)

¡ can always be replaced with ergative

Overall frequencies (%) from discourse study; n = 531

4

69

27ABLERGzero

¨ No passive or antipassive¨ No case marking on intransitive subjects¨ No syntactic ergativity (Schultze-Berndt 2017)

à overt case-marking

Discourse Study

Examples of variable agent markingpigipigi=biyang ngiyinthu,pig=then this

mung ganuny-ngayi-m buliki:, nindulook.at 3SG>3DU-see-PRS cow horse

‘this pig here then, it looks at the two, the cow and horse’ (CP, ES96_A13_03.153-4)

mung ganuny-ngayi-m pigipigi-nilook.at 3SG>3DU-see-PRS pig-ERG

‘the pig is looking at the two’ (CP, ES96_A13_03.157)

Discourse Study

7/18/18

10

Data

¡116 texts (approximately 12,500 intonation units)¡mythological and personal narratives, procedural

texts, re-tellings of picture books and other descriptions of visual stimuli, conversations

¡ representing 15 (mostly female) speakers

¡531 (clear cases of) clauses with overt As, extracted manually

Discourse Study

CodingAll clauses with overt As coded for¡ Information structure category of A¡Person of A¡ TAM¡Verb class / effectiveness of event¡ Constituent order ¡Definiteness (clearly definite vs. unspecified) ¡Nominal subclass: pronoun, demonstrative, noun¡ “Local” animacy: human / animate / inanimate¡ “Global” animacy/person: Direct, equipollent and

inverse patterns

Discourse Study

7/18/18

11

Sentence topic (NB: no dislocation construction)¡ Left edge topic¡ Right edge topicFocus¡Narrow / argument focus [focused constituent = A]¡ Prosodically integrated AF (initial or postverbal)¡ Afterthought

¡ Broad focus (BF)¡ Thetic clausesBackground (rare for Agent NPs)

21

Information structure categoriesDiscourse Study

Definitions: Focus and Background

¡ Focus: expression that fills a variable in an open proposition ~ answers an implicit question~ evokes potential alternatives

22

Broad focus:What happened to the frog? – [A dog found it].

§ Background: non-focused rhematic (i.e. non-topical) part of the clause (if any) (e.g Krifka 1992)

Narrow focus:Who found the frog? – [The dog] found it.

Discourse Study

7/18/18

12

Definition: (Sentence) topic¡ The topic “limits the applicability of the main

predication to a certain restricted domain” …“sets a spatial, temporal, or individual frame-work within which the main predication holds” (Chafe 1976: 50)

23

“Topic selection is a speech act itself, an initiating speech act that requires a subsequent speech act like an assertion, question, command, or curse about the entity that was selected.” (Krifka 2001: 25)

§ By definition, initial position (or final, for right-edge topics) (Li & Thompson 1976: 465)

§ Informational separation (in terms of prosodic phrasing) (Jacobs 2001: 645)

Discourse Study

bulanyni ganiwirrim

Initial topical vs. focal Agent24

(Broad) Focus

bulany=ni gani-wirri-m snake=ERG 3SG>3SG-bite-PRS

‘a snake bites him’ (IP; ES08_A16_02.036)

In Jam/Ngali: • Focal constituents have a salient high-low

(falling) contour associated with the left edge (Simard 2010, 2014, 2015)

• Left-edge topics precede this focal contour

yirri=biya munuwi yirr-arra-m1PL=then native.bee 1PL>3SG-put-PRS

‘we call them munuwi (native bee)’(IP, ES97_A03_01.188)

Discourse Study

7/18/18

13

Statistical method

¡Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with logistic link function (glmr; glm2 package in R)

¡ Fixed effects:¡ Information structure (of A): Topic / Non-topic¡ Person (of A): 1st, 2nd / 3rd

¡ Effectiveness of event: Y/N¡ Past Perfective: Y/N

¡ Random effect: Speaker (15)

Discourse Study

Information structure

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Focus/Backgr Topic

markedunmarked

è Marking is more likely to be absent on topical As(significant, p>0.001)

è Note that the majority of (overt) As are rhematic(mostly focal)

Discourse Study

7/18/18

14

Person

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1st/2nd 3rd person

markedunmarked

è Marking is more likely to be absent with 1st/2nd than with 3rd

person Agents(significant, p>0.001)

Discourse Study

Affectedness of Object

0

50

100

150

200

250

Marked

UnmarkedNot affected

Affected

è Marking is more likely to be absent for non-effective verbs (possessive ‘have’; verb introducing direct speech)(significant, p>0.001)

Discourse Study

7/18/18

15

TAM: Past perfective vs. others

0

50

100

150

200

250

markedunmarked

Non-Past Perfective

Discourse Study

è Marking is somewhat more likely to be absent in non-past perfective clauses (not significant)

Summary of patterns in Jam/Ngali

Likelihood of As to be unmarked:

Other TAM > Past perfective clause – not significant(but categorically unmarked As in imperfective “pseudo-progressives” were excluded from consideration)

1st/2nd > 3rd person – significant

Topic > Non-topic (rhematic) – significant

Non-affected > affected object – significant

R2c = 0.51 (good for human speech data…)

Discourse Study

7/18/18

16

Summary of patterns in Jam/Ngali

¡Our findings provide the first quantitative evidence for the influence of (independently defined) information structure categories on case marking in an “optional” ergative language

¡ Cf. for differential object marking Iemmolo (2010)

Discourse Study

Discussion and implications: Disentangling universal and language-specific factors in Differential Argument marking

7/18/18

17

Disentangling universal and language-specific factors in Differential Argument marking¡Why so much diversity in alignment systems?èCompeting motivations in terms of universal discourse

preferences, grammaticalized to different degrees¡ Explicitness of marking of a given semantic role

(“Faithfulness”, “Indexing”)¡ Economy: arguments in a predictable semantic role

can be left unmarked¡ Predictability derived from frequency of the relevant

association in discourse

Implications

E.g. Silverstein (1986 [1976]); Dixon (1979); Du Bois (1985; 2003); Aissen (2003); Haspelmath (2008); Malchukov (2008; 2015); …

Competing motivations¡ Explicitness of marking of a given semantic

role (“Faithfulness”, “Indexing”)¡ Economy: arguments in a predictable

semantic role can be left unmarked¡ Predictability derived from frequency of the relevant

association in discourse

Implications

Plus: ¡Analogy (Itkonen 2005; de Smet 2009) / “System Pressure”

(Haspelmath 2014)¡ The tendency for grammatical coding to target entire classes

of items ¡ E.g. “mark all 1st arguments of transitive clauses with ergative

case”

7/18/18

18

Competing motivations in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru

Economy“Do not mark NP if its role is predictable”

Index “Do not mark NP unless it it is a good instantiation of the role encoded by the case marker”

Factor 3: Non-effective As are not good instantiations of the Jam/Ngali Effector case role(see Schultze-Berndt 2017)

Factor 2: 1st/2nd p. pronouns are expected to be As

Factor 1: Referents encoded as sentence topics are expected to be As(e.g. Hopper & Thompson

1980; Tsunoda 1981; Malchukov 2008, 2015)

Implications

Economy and the role of Information Structure

Frequent version of the argument:¡ Agents are overwhelmingly discourse-given (e.g. Du Bois 1987,

2003; Everett 2009; Haig & Schnell 2016)¡ New Agents are therefore the unexpected case and have to be

marked (cf. McGregor 2008, Malchukov 2008: 214-5, Verstraete2010: 1649)

However,¡ Agents that are discourse topics are usually omitted ¡ In our dataset, the majority of overt Agents (66%) are not

topics¡ Rather, in order to explain the likelihood of zero-marking on

sentence topics, we will have to assume that sentence topics are most frequently Agents.

Implications

7/18/18

19

The validity of the referential hierarchy Implications

q However, Bickel et al. (2015) conflate the referential hierarchy and discourse status (as does the critical review of their data and conclusions by Schmidtke-Bode & Levshina 2018).

§ Theoretically and – as shown for Jaminjung – actually independent, and potentially competing with one another

q “Discourse status” in turn conflates a number of factors:“… higher vs. lower prominence in discourse, manifested variably as specific vs. nonspecific, definite vs. indefinite, topical vs. nontopical and similar” (Bickel et al. 2015: 17)

q The universal relevance of the referential (animacy/person) hierarchy has recently been called into question.

Referential hierarchy competing with information structure

¡ The independence of information structure and the referential hierarchy also suggests a way of accounting for apparent violations of the nominal hierarchy (Filimonova 2005; Bickel et al. 2015):

E.g. Kalaw Lagaw Ya: • Singular pronouns take ergative marking • Nonsingular pronouns and proper names do not

(Bani & Klokeid 1976; Comrie 1981; also discussed in Filimonova 2005: 100)

Implications

7/18/18

20

¡ Such counterexamples to the referential hierarchy could plausibly be the diachronic result of conventionalisation – by analogy – of a “competing” pattern (cf. also Simpson 2012), e.g.¡ regular case-marking of focal A pronouns ¡ Low overall frequency of free pronouns, with

relatively high proportion of SG focal pronouns> By analogical extension, categorical case-marking

on SG as opposed to all other pronouns.

¡ But actual diachronic evidence hard to come by for most languages

Referential hierarchy competing with information structure Implications

Language-specific factors constraining the applicability of universal motivations¡ Language-specific affinities of particular verb classes with

case patterns (e.g. Tsunoda 1981; von Heusinger 2008; von Heusinger & Kaiser 2011; García García 2018: 228-235)

¡ Alternative constructions vs. canonical transitive, e.g. for¡ Inanimate “Agents” (Fauconnier 2011)¡ Specific classes of predicate, e.g.¡ Emotions and physical responses (‘be hungry; ‘like’; ’fear’)¡ Cognition¡ Predicative possession

¡ Imperfectives (e.g. in Jaminjung; Schultze-Berndt 2012, 2017)

Implications

7/18/18

21

Language-specific factors constraining the applicability of universal motivations

Implications

Language-specific differences in the “Macro-Agent” category, e.g. § Sentient being§ Volitional instigator of an action§ Effector (subsuming instruments and natural forces &

requiring affectedness of 2nd participant) (cf. Van Valin & Wilkins 1996; for Jaminjung: Schultze-Berndt 2017)

… may in turn reflect the diachronic processes that brought about the relevant constructions (e.g. Creissels 2008, Cristofaro 2009, 2013, 2014)

Are discourse patterns universal?

¡ Language-specificity could conceivably also arise in terms of language- or culture-specific discourse patterns:¡ Cross-linguistic differences in frequency (e.g. of

pronouns or sentence topics as Agents) would lead to different outcomes of the application of the Economy principle

¡ Assumptions about preferred discourse patterns need to be subjected to empirical scrutiny (cf. Everett 2009; Haig & Schnell 2006 for Preferred Argument Structure)

Implications

7/18/18

22

Information structure and DAM: methodological lessons

¡ Actual discourse studies of the association of information structure categories with particular grammatical roles are urgently needed.

Implications

¡ Requires clarity of definition and terminology, e.g.¡ Sentence topic (speaker prominence) vs discourse topic (hearer

prominence)¡ Discourse activation vs. persistence vs. accessibility¡ Focus vs. contrast¡ It may be best to add further specification to the notion

of “prominence”

E.g. combination of GRAID annotation scheme (Haig & Schnell 2014) with referent tracking (Schiborr, Schnell & Thiele 2018) and basic infor-mation structure annotation (Schnell, Schultze-Berndt & Singer in prep.)

Thank you

¡ To all Jaminjung and Ngaliwurru contributors

¡ To Felicity Meakins, for joint work on the quantitative study

¡ To Candide Simard, for joint work on prosody and information structure in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru

¡ To the Max Planck Society and the Volkswagen Foundation (DoBeS Programme Grants 82957 and 86101) for financial support

7/18/18

23

In deep gratitude to a great linguist and teacher

Hans-Jürgen Sasse1943–2015

Relationale Typologie. Weiterführende Gedanken zu Planks Relational Typology. Linguistische Berichte 131: 45-59 (1991).

¡ On the typology of grammatical relations (1991):

Es scheint doch alles etwas komplizierter zu sein alsman dachte (...).

[Es beginnt eine neue Periode der Beschäftigung mit der Typologie grammatischer Relationen], die durch die Einsichtgekennzeichnet ist, dass mehr Parameter als die bloßeKodierung von Partizipantenrelationen für die Typologie des einfachen Satzes eine Rolle spielen.

Universalvs.language-specificinfluencesonagentprominenceanddifferentialagentmarking:aviewfromDownUnder

EvaSchultze-Berndt,UniversityofManchester

SecondInternationalConference“ProminenceinLanguage”,UniversitätzuKöln,11July2018References:Aissen,Judith(2003).DifferentialObjectMarking:Iconicityvs.Economy.NaturalLanguage

andLinguisticTheory,21(3):435-483.Bani,Ephraim&TerryJ.Klokeid(1976).ErgativeswitchinginKalaLagauLanggus.InPeter

Sutton(ed.),LanguagesofCapeYorkPeninsula,Queensland,269-283.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalStudies.

Bickel,Balthasar,AlenaWitzlack-Makarevich,andTarasZakharko.(2015).'Typologicalevidenceagainstuniversaleffectsofreferentialscalesoncasealignment',inInaBornkessel-Schlesewsky,AndrejL.MalchukovandMarcRichards(eds.),Scalesandhierarchies:across-disciplinaryperspective.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,7-43.

Bond,Oliver,KristineA.Hildebrandt,andDubiNandaDhakal.(2013).ProbabilisticcaseinthelanguagesofManang.PaperpresentedattheCambridgeGroupforEndangeredLanguagesandCultures,Cambridge,UK,4thDecember2013.

Chadwick,Neil(1997).TheBarklyandJaminjunglanguages:anon-contiguousgeneticgrouping.In:DarrellTryon&MichaelWalsh(eds.),Boundaryrider:StudiesinthelexicologyandcomparativelinguisticsofAustralianlanguages,95-106.Canberra,PacificLinguistics.

Chafe,Wallace(1976).Givenness,contrastiveness,definiteness,subjects,topicsandpointofview.InCharlesN.Li(ed.),SubjectandTopic,27-55.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Chelliah,ShobhanaL.(2009).'SemanticRoletonewinformationinMeithei',inJ.BarðdalandS.L.Chelliah(eds.),TheRoleofSemantic,Pragmatic,andDiscourseFactorsintheDevelopmentofCase.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,377–401.

Chiarcos,Christian(2011).TheMentalSalienceFramework:Context-adequategenerationofreferring expressions. In: C. Chiarcos, B. Claus and M. Grabski (eds.), Salience -Multidisciplinary Perspectives on its Function inDiscourse,105-140. Berlin:MoutonDeGruyter.

Chiriacescu,Sofiana&KlausvonHeusinger(2010).DiscourseProminenceandPe-markinginRomanian.InternationalReviewofPragmatics2:298–332.

Comrie,Bernard(1981).ErgativityandgrammaticalrelationsinKalawLagawYa(Saibaidialect).AustralianJournalofLinguistics1,1:1-42.

Cristofaro,Sonia(2009).Grammaticalcategoriesandrelations:universalityvs.languagespecificityandconstruction-specificity.Language&LinguisticsCompass,3(1),441-479.

Cristofaro,Sonia(2013).Thereferentialhierarchy:Reviewingtheevidenceindiachronicperspective.InD.Bakker&M.Haspelmath(eds.),Languagesacrossboundaries:StudiesinmemoryofAnnaSiewierska,69–93.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Cristofaro,Sonia(2014).Competingmotivationmodelsanddiachrony:Whatevidenceforwhatmotivation?InB.MacWhinney,A.Malchukov,&E.A.Moravcsik(eds.),CompetingmotivationsinGrammarandUsage.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

DeSmet,Hendrik(2009).Analysingreanalysis.Lingua119(11):1728-1755.Denwood,Philip(1999).Tibetan.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Dixon,R.M.W.(1979).Ergativity.Language55:59-138.

DuBois,JohnW.(1985).CompetingMotivationsIconicityinSyntax.ProceedingsofaSymposiumonIconicityinSyntax,343-365.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.

DuBois,JohnW.(1987).Thediscoursebasisofergativity.Language,63(4),805-855.DuBois,JohnW.(2003).'Argumentstructure:Grammarinuse',inJohnW.DuBois,LorraineE.

KumpfandWilliamJ.Ashby(eds.),PreferredArgumentStructure:GrammarasArchitectureforFunction,11–60.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Escandell-Vidal,Victoria(2007).TopicsfromIbiza:differentialobjectmarkingandclitic-dislocation.InGeorgA.KaiserandManuelLeonetti(eds.),ProceedingsoftheWorkshop“Definiteness,SpecificityandAnimacyinIbero-RomanceLanguages”,23–43.UniversitätKonstanz:FachbereichSprachwissenschaft(Arbeitspapier122).

Everett,Caleb(2009).Areconsiderationofthemotivationsforpreferredargumentstructure.StudiesinLanguage33:1–24.

Fauconnier,Stefanie(2011).Differentialagentmarkingandanimacy.Lingua121(3):533–547.

Fauconnier,Stefanie,andJean-ChristopheVerstraete(2014).AandOaseachother'smirrorimage?Problemswithmarkednessreversal.LinguisticTypology,18(1):3–49.

Filimonova,Elena(2005).Thenounphrasehierarchyandrelationalmarking:Problemsandcounterevidence.LinguisticTypology9,77–113

Gaby,Alice(2008).Pragmaticallycase-marked.Non-syntacticfunctionsoftheKuukThaayorreergativesuffix.InI.MushinandB.Baker(eds.),DiscourseandGrammarinAustralianLanguages.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,111–134.

Gaby,Alice(2010).Fromdiscoursetosyntaxandback:ThelifecycleofKuukThaayorreergativemorphology.Lingua120(7):1677-1692.

GarcíaGarcía,Marco(2018).NominalandverbalparametersinthediachronyofdifferentialobjectmarkinginSpanish.InA.Witzlack-MakarevichandI.A.Seržant(eds.),Diachronyofdifferentialargumentmarking.Berlin,LanguageSciencePress:209-242.

Green,Ian&RachelNordlinger(2004).RevisitingProto-Mirndi.InC.Bowern&H.Koch(eds.),AustralianLanguages.ClassificationandtheComparativeMethod,291-311.Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Grosz,Barbara,ScottWeinstein&AravindK.Joshi(1995).Centering:Aframeworkformodelingthelocalcoherenceofdiscourse.Computationallinguistics21(2):203-225.

Haig,Geoffrey&StefanSchnell(2016).Thediscoursebasisofergativityrevisited.Language92:591-618.

Harvey,Mark(2008).ProtoMirndi.AdiscontinuouslanguagefamilyinnorthernAustralia.Canberra:PacificLinguistics.

Haspelmath,Martin(2008).Frequencyvs.iconicityinexplaininggrammaticalasymmetries.CognitiveLinguistics,19(1):1–33.

Haspelmath,Martin(2014).Onsystempressurecompetingwitheconomicmotivation.InB.MacWhinney,A.Malchukov,&E.A.Moravcsik(Eds.),CompetingmotivationsinGrammarandUsage(pp.197-208).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hopper,PaulJ.,andSandraA.Thompson.(1980).Transitivityingrammaranddiscourse.Language56:251-299.

Hyslop,Gwendolyn(2010).Kurtöpcase:thepragmaticergativeandbeyond.LinguisticsoftheTibeto-BurmanArea,33(1):1-40.

Iemmolo,Giorgio(2010).Topicalityanddifferentialobjectmarking:EvidencefromRomanceandbeyond.StudiesinLanguage34:239–272.

Itkonen,Esa.(2005).Analogyasstructureandprocess:Approachesinlinguistics,cognitivepsychologyandphilosophyofscience.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Jacobs,Joachim(2001).Thedimensionsoftopic-comment.Linguistics39:641-681.Jacques,Guillaume(2010).TheInverseinJaphugRgyalrong.LanguageandLinguistics,11(1):

127-157.Krifka,Manfred(1992).Acompositionalsemanticsformultiplefocusconstructions.In

JoachimJacobs(ed.),InformationsstrukturundGrammatik,17-53.Wiesbaden:Springer.Krifka,Manfred(2001).QuantifyingintoQuestionActs.NaturalLanguageSemantics,9,1-40.LaPolla,RandyJ.&ChenglongHuang(2008).AGrammarofQiang.Withannotatedtextsand

glossary.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Li,CharlesN.&SandraA.Thompson(1976).Subjectandtopic:AnewTypologyofLanguage.

InCharlesN.Li(ed.),SubjectandTopic,457-489.NewYork:AcademicPress.Lidz,LibertyA.(2011).AgentivemarkinginYongningNa(Mosuo).LinguisticsoftheTibeto-

BurmanArea,34(2):49–72.Malchukov,AndrejL.(2008).Animacyandasymmetriesindifferentialcasemarking.Lingua,

118:203-221.Malchukov,Andrej.(2015).'Towardsatypologyofsplitergativity:ATAM-hierarchyforalignment

splits',inInaBornkessel-Schlesewsky,AndrejL.MalchukovandMarcRichards(eds.),Scalesandhierarchies:across-disciplinaryperspective.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,275-296.

McGregor,WilliamB.(1992).ThesemanticsofergativemarkinginGooniyandi.Linguistics,30:275-318.

McGregor,WilliamB.(1998).OptionalergativemarkinginGooniyandirevisited:implicationsforthetheoryofmarking.LeuvenseBijdragen,87:491-534.

McGregor,WilliamB.(2008).IndexicalsassourcesofcasemarkersinAustralianlanguages.InF.JosephsonandI.Söhrman(eds.),Interdependenceofdiachronicandsynchronicanalyses,299-321.Amsterdam:Benjamins.

McGregor,WilliamB.(2017).GrammaticalizationofErgativeMarkers.In:J.Coon,D.MassamandL.d.Travis(eds.),OxfordHandbookofErgativity,447-464.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.

Meakins,Felicity(2009).Thecaseoftheshiftyergativemarker:ApragmaticshiftintheergativemarkerofoneAustralianmixedlanguage.InJ.BarðdalandS.L.Chelliah(eds.),TheRoleofSemantic,Pragmatic,andDiscourseFactorsintheDevelopmentofCase.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,59–92.

Meakins,Felicity(2011).Case-MarkinginContact.ThedevelopmentandfunctionofcasemorphologyinGurindjiKriol.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Meakins,Felicity,andCarmelO'Shannessy(2010).Orderingargumentsabout:WordorderanddiscoursemotivationsinthedevelopmentanduseoftheergativemarkerintwoAustralianmixedlanguages.Lingua,120(7):1677-1692.

Onishi,Masayuki.(1994).AGrammarofMotuna(Bougainville,PapuaNewGuinea).LinguisticsDepartment,AustralianNationalUniversity.PhD.

Özge,Duygu,EbruEvcen,AlperKesici&EnginKöse(2018).PronounresolutioninTurkishTransfer-of-PossessionVerbs.PaperpresentedattheSecondInternationalConference“ProminenceinLanguage”,UniversitätzuKöln,12July2018.

Pensalfini,Rob(1999).TheriseofcasesuffixesasdiscoursemarkersinJingulu—acasestudyofinnovationinanobsolescentlanguage.AustralianJournalofLinguistics,19(2):225–240.

Röhr,Christine,HenrikNiemann,StefanBaumann&MartineGrice(2018).ProsodicCuesinExpectation-DrivenProminenceMarking.PosterpresentedattheSecondInternationalConference“ProminenceinLanguage”,UniversitätzuKöln,12July2018.

Schiborr,NilsN.,StefanSchnell&HannaThiele(2018).RefIND—Referentindexinginnatural-languagediscourse.Annotationguidelinesv1.1.Manuscript,UniversityofBamberg.

Schneider-Blum,Gertrud(forthcoming).ReferenceTrackinginTimaanditsInterplaywithSplitErgativeMarking.Manuscript,UniversitätzuKöln.

Schultze-Berndt,Eva(2012).PluractionalPosingasProgressive:AConstructionbetweenLexicalandGrammaticalAspect.AustralianJournalofLinguistics32,1:7–39.

Schultze-Berndt,Eva(2017).InteractionofergativityandinformationstructureinJaminjung(Australia).In:J.Coon,D.MassamandL.d.Travis(eds.),OxfordHandbookofErgativity.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress:1089–1113.

Schultze-Berndt,Eva,CandideSimard,MarkHarvey,DorotheaHoffmann,andJaminjungandNgaliwurrucommunities,2017.AnnotatedaudiovisualcorpusofJaminjungandNgaliwurru,1994–2016.DOBESArchivehttp://dobes.mpi.nl/research/

Silverstein,Michael(1986).Hierarchyoffeaturesandergativity.InP.MuyskenandH.C.vanRiemsdijk(eds.),FeaturesandProjections.163-232.

Simard,Candide(2010).TheProsodicContoursofJaminjung,alanguageofNorthernAustralia.(PhDdissertation),UniversityofManchester,Manchester.

Simard,Candide(2014).AnotherlookatrightdetachedNPs.ProceedingsofLanguageDocumentationandLinguisticTheory4.London,SOAS.

Simard,Candide(2015).Onbeingfirst.PaperpresentedattheInformationStructureinSpokenLanguageCorpora(ISSLAC)2,Paris,2December2015.

Simpson,Jane(2012).'Informationstructure,variationandtheReferentialHierarchy',inF.Seifart,G.Haig,N.P.Himmelmann,D.Jung,A.Margetts,andP.Trilsbeek(eds.),PotentialsofLanguageDocumentation:Methods,Analyses,andUtilization.LanguageDocumentation&ConservationSpecialPublicationNo.3,73–82

Suter,Edgar(2010).TheOptionalErgativeinKate.InJ.Bowden,N.P.Himmelmann,andM.Ross(eds.),AjourneythroughAustronesianandPapuanlinguisticandculturalspace.PapersinhonourofAndrewPawley.Canberra:PacificLinguistics,423–437.

Tournadre,Nicolas(1991).TherhetoricaluseoftheTibetanergative.LinguisticsoftheTibeto-BurmanArea,14(1).

Tournadre,Nicolas(1995).Tibetanergativityandthetrajectorymodel.InY.Nishi,J.A.Matisoff,andY.Nagano(eds.),NewhorizonsinTibeto-Burmanmorphosyntax.Osaka:NationalMuseumofEthnology,261-275.

Tsunoda,Tasaku(1981).Splitcase-markingpatternsinverb-typesandtense/aspect/mood.Linguistics19:389-438.

Verstraete,Jean-Christophe(2010).AnimacyandinformationstructureinthesystemofergativemarkinginUmpithamu.Lingua,120(7):1637-1651.

VanValin,RobertD.&DavidWilkins.1996.Thecasefor“effector”:Caseroles,agents,andagencyrevisited.InM.Shibatani&S.A.Thomas(eds.),Grammaticalconstructions:theirformandmeaning,289–322.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

vonHeusinger,Klaus(2008).VerbalSemanticsandtheDiachronicDevelopmentofDOMinSpanish.Probus20(1):1-31.

vonHeusinger,Klaus&GeorgA.Kaiser(2011).AffectednessanddifferentialobjectmarkinginSpanish.Morphology21:593–617.