Bibliography on Ergativity-Andrea Drocco

Bibliography on Ergativity in Indo-Aryan

(di Andrea Drocco)

(still under construction - updated 31/12/2015)

Abadie, P. 1974. ‘Nepali as an ergative language’, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 1.156-177.

Ahmed, T. 2006. ‘Spatial, Temporal and Structural Uses of Urdu ko’. Talk at the Workshop on “Case and Aspect in South Asian

Languages”, LFG06, Konstanz. An updated handout on this topic is presented at Universität Stuttgart in January 2007.

2007a. ‘Unaccusativity and Underspecification in Urdu’. Talk at the Conference on “Theoretical and Computational Perspectives on

Under specification”, Stuttgart.

2007b. ‘Ablative, Sociative and Instrumental Case Markers’. Talk at the Conference of “Language and Technology”, Peshawar.

2008a. ‘Non-Canonical Objects in South Asian languages’. Talk at the Workshop on “Case and Alignment in Indo-European”,

Bergen.

2008b. ‘Non-Canonical Object marking in Nepali and Manipuri’. Talk at the “14th Himalayan Languages Symposium”, Gothenburg.

2008c. ‘Spatial Sources of Structural Case’. Talk at the Workshop on “A Non-Canonical Perspective on Case”, Konstanz.

2008d. ‘NCTV in Urdu/Hindi and Nepali’. Talk at the Workshop on “Transitivity and Case Alternations”, Stuttgart.

Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. W., and Onishi, M. (eds.) 2001. Non- Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Allen, W. S. 1951. ‘A study in the analysis of Hindi sentence structure’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 6.68-86.

1960. ‘Notes on the Rājāsthanī verb’, Indian Linguistics 21.1-10.

1964. ‘Transitivity and possession’, Language 40.337-343.

Andersen, H. (ed.) 2001. Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress. (Papers from a workshop held at the “14th Conference on

Historical Linguistics”, Vancouver, B.C., 14 August 1999). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Andersen, P. K. 1986a. ‘The genitive agent in Rigvedic passive constructions’, in Collectanea linguistica in honorem Adami Heinz [Prace

Komisji Językoznawstwa 53], 9-13. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.

Andersen, P. K. 1986b. ‘Die ta-Partizipialkonstruktion bei Aśoka: Passiv oder Ergativ?’, Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Sprachforschung

99.75-94.

Anderson, S. R. 1977. ‘On mechanism by which languages become ergative’, in Li, C. (ed.), 317-363.

Artemis, A. & Hall, A. T. (eds.) 1997. Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bahl, K. C. 1972. On the present state of Modern Rajasthani grammar. Jodhpur: Rajasthani Shodh Samsthan, Chauparni. (Rajasthani

Prakirnak Prakashan Pushp, 5).

Bashir, E. 1999. ‘The Urdu and Hindi Ergative Postposition ne: Its Changing Role in the Grammar’, in Singh, R. (ed.), pp. 11-36.

Bennett, D., Bynon, T., and Hewitt, G. (eds.) 1995. Subject, Voice and Ergativity. Selected essays. London: School of Oriental and

African Studies, University of London.

Benveniste, E. 1952. ‘La construction passive du parfait transitif’, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique 48.52-62.

Bhat, D. N. S. 1988. Grammatical relations in Indian languages. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.

1991. Grammatical relations: the evidence against their necessity and universality. London: Routledge.

Bhatia, T. K. 1982. ‘The treatement of transitivity in the Hindi grammatical tradition’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11:2.195-208.

Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.) 2004. Non-nominative Subjects. Voll. 1-2. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Bhayani, H. C. 1945. ‘Endingless Genitive in Apabhraṃśa’, Bhāratīya Vidyā 6:5.103-104.

Bickel, B. & Yadava, Y. P. 2000. ‘A Fresh Look at Grammatical Relations in Indo-Aryan’, Lingua 110.343-373.

Bisang, W. 1996. ‘Areal typology and grammaticalization: processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and

mainland South East Asian languages’, Studies in Language 20:3.519-597.

Breunis, A. 1990. The Nominal Sentence in Sanskrit and Middle Indo-Aryan. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Bronkhorst, J. 1991. ‘Pāṇini and the nominal sentence’, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 71 (1990).301-304.

Bubenik, V. 1989a. ‘On the Origins and Elimination of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan Languages’, The Canadian Journal of Linguistics

34.377-398.

1989b. ‘An Interpretation of Split Ergativity in Indo-Iranian Languages’, Diachronica 6:2.181-211.

1993a. ‘Morphological and Syntactic Change in Late Middle Indo-Aryan’, Journal of Indo-European Studies 21.259-281.

1993b. ‘Restructuring of the Nominal System and the Evolution of Phrasal Case in Late Middle Indo-Aryan’, South Asian

Horizons 1.229-248.

1996. The Structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraäða). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2000. ‘Was Proto-Romani an Ergative Language?’, in Elsik, V. & Matras, Y. (eds.), 205-227

2001. ‘On the Actualization of the Passive-to-Ergative shift in the Pre-Islamic India’, in Andersen, H. (ed.), 95-118.

Bubenik V. & Paranjape, C. 1996. ‘Development of Pronominal Systems from Apabhraṃśa to New Indo-Aryan’, Indo-Iranian

Journal 39.111-132.

Burton-Page, J. 1957. ‘The syntax of participial forms in Hindi’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19:1.94ff.

Butt, M. 2003. ‘Argument Realization in Punjabi’, Talk at the Workshop on “Case, Valency and Transitivity”, Nijmegen, June 17-19,

2003.

2006a. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2006b. ‘The Dative-Ergative Connection’. Proceedings of the “Colloque Syntax-Semantique de Paris 2005”, Paris.

2007. ‘Why Case?’. Talk at the Workshop on “Empirical Approaches to Morphological Case”, Stanford.

Butt, M. & Ahmed, T. 2007. ‘Non-Canonical Argument Marking: Beyond Volitionality, Specificity and Animacy’. Talk at the Workshop

on “Case, Word Order and Prominence in Argument Structure”, Nijmegen.

Butt, M. & King, T. 1991. ‘Semantic case in Urdu’, Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 27.31-45.

Butt, M. & Poudel, T. 2007. ‘Distribution of the Ergative in Nepali’. Universität Leipzig, Leipzig.

Butt, M., Ahmed, T. and Poudel, T. 2008a. ‘Development of Case in South Asian Languages’. DGfS Workshop Sprachwandelvergleich,

Bamberg.

2008b. ‘Case: A Semantic System’. Talk at the “SFB 471 International Colloquium”, Konstanz.

Butt, M., Grimm, S. and Ahmed, T. 2006. ‘Dative Subjects’. Talk at the “NWO/DFG Workshop on Optimal Sentence Processing”,

Nijmegen.

Bynon, T. 1979. ‘The Ergative Construction in Kurdish’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42.211-224.

1980. ‘From Passive to Active in Kurdish via the Ergative Construction’, in Traugott, E. C. et al. (eds.), 151-163.

2005. ‘Evidential, raised possessor, and the historical source of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian’, Transactions of the

Philological Society 103/1, 1-72.

Cardona, G. 1970. ‘The Indo-Iranian construction mama (mama) kṛtam’, Language 46.1-12.

1976. ‘Subject in Sanskrit’, in Verma, M. K. (ed.), 1-38.

Cardona, G. & Jain, Dh. (eds.) 2003. The Indo-Aryan Languages. London & New York: Routledge.

Clark, Eve V. (ed.) 1995. The Proceedings of the twenty-sixth Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, CA: Center for the

Study of Language and Information.

Comrie, B. 1979. ‘Some remarks on ergativity in South Asian languages’, South Asian Languages Analysis 1.211-219.

1998. ‘South Asian Languages and Linguistic Typology’, Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 237-246.

Dahl, E. & Fedriani, C. 2012. ‘The argument structure of experience: Experiential constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early

Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society 110/3, 342-362.

Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M., & Wheatley, K. (eds.) 1998. Fuctionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Vol. 1:

General Papers. Vol. 2: Case Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Davison, A. 1985. ‘Experiencers and patients as subjects in Hindi-Urdu’, in Zide, A.R.K. et al. (eds.) 1985, 160-178.

1998. ‘Ergativity. Functional and formal issues’, in Darnell, M. et al. (eds.), Vol. 1, 177-208.

1999. ‘Ergative case licensing in a split ergative language’, in Singh, R. (ed.), 291-307.

2004. ‘Non-nominative subjects in Hindi-Urdu: VP structure and case parameters’, in Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Vol.

I: 141-168.

Davison, A. & Smith, F. M. (eds.) 1994. Papers from the fifteenth South Asian Language Analysis Roundtable Conference 1993. IOWA:

University of Iowa, South Asian Studies Program.

De Lancey, S. & Tomlin, R. S. (eds.) 1985. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference. Eugene:

Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.

Deo, A. & Sharma, D. 2006. ‘Typological Variation in the Ergative Morphology of Indo-Aryan Languages’, Linguistic Typology

10:3.369-418.

Deshpande, M. M. & Bhate, S. (eds.) 1992. Pāṇinian studies. Professor S. D. Joshi Felicitation Volume. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.

Doderet, W. 1928. ‘The grammar of the Jñāneśvarī’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 4.543-573.

Drocco, A. 2008. L’ergatività in hindī. Studio diacronico del processo di diffusione della posposizione “ne”. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

2009a. ‘La concordanza verbale nelle costruzioni transitive passate della braja-bhāṣā’. To appear in Festschrift Stefano Piano.

2009b. ‘The Evolution of the Ergative-Absolutive System in some Western New-Indo-Aryan Languages’. Talk at the Workshop

“Reconstructing Alignment Systems”, 14-15 May 2009, Bergen.

Durbin, M. 1979. ‘Ergativity and antipassive in Gujarati’, South Asian Language Analysis (Papers from annual meeting) 1.169-192.

Elsik, V. & Matras, Y. (eds.) 2000. Grammatical Relations in Romani: the noun phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Farrel, T. 1995. ‘Fading ergativity? A study of ergativity in Balochi’, in Bennett, D. et al. (eds.), 218-243.

Geiger, W. 1893. Die Passivconstruction des Prateritums transitiver Verb aim Iranischen. Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth, 1-5. Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer.

Gonda, J. 1951. Remarks on the Sanskrit Passive. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Grierson, G. A. 1903. ‘On certain Suffixes in the Modern Indo-Aryan Vernaculars’, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf

dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, pp. 403 ff.

Grimm, S. 2006. ‘Subject Marking in Hindi/Urdu: A Study in Case and Agency’, in Janneke Huitink and Sophia Katrenko (eds.) ESSLLI

2006 Proceedings of the Student Session, August, Malaga.

Gulina, M. 1998-1999. ‘More on the Theory of Ergativity in Proto-Indo-European. A Reconstruction Hypothesis’, Quaderni del

Laboratorio di Linguistica 12-13.118-132.

Haig, G. 1998. ‘On the Interaction of Morphological and Syntactic Ergativity: Lessons from Kurdish’, Lingua 105.149-17.

Hendriksen, H. 1944. Syntax of the infinite verbs of Pāli. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Hinüber von, O. 1968. Studien zur Kasussyntax des Pāli, Besonders des Vinaya-Piṭaka. München: Kitzinger. (Münchener Studien zur

Sprachwissenschaft, Beihefte, Neue Folge, 2)

Hock, H. H. 1980. ‘The Modern Indo-Aryan Ergative and Passive Constructions: A Historical Perspective’, Paper presented at the

South Asian Literary Association 2.

1982. ‘The Sanskrit passive: Synchronic behaviour and diachronic development’, in Mistry, P. J. (ed.), 127-137.

1985. ‘Transitivity as a gradient feature? Evidence from Indo-Aryan, especially Sanskrit and Hindi’, in Zide, A. R. K. et al. (eds.),

247-263.

1986a. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

1986b. ‘P-oriented constructions in Sanskrit’. In Krishnamurti, Bh., Masica, C. P., and Sinha, A. K. (eds.), 15-26.

1988. ‘Ta-participles with Genitive Agents in Vedic Sanskrit: Passives, Ergatives, or Stative/Intransitives?’, Paper presented at the

South Asian Literary Association 10.

1990. ‘Oblique subjects in Sanskrit ?’, in Verma, M. K. & Mohanan, K. P. (eds.) 1990, 119-139.

(ed.) 1991a. Studies in Sanskrit Syntax: A Volume in Honor of the Centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit Syntax (1886-1986). Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass.

1991b. ‘Possessive agents in Sanskrit ?’, in Hock, H. H. (ed.), 55-69.

1991c. ‘Causees, passive agents, or instruments ? Instrumental NPs with causatives in early and later Vedic prose’, in Hock, H. H.

(ed.), 71-93.

Hook, P. E. 1976. ‘Some syntactic reflexes of subcategories of agent in Hindi’, in Verma, M. K. (ed.), 65-78.

1980. ‘Aṣṭādhyāyī 3.3.158 and the notion of subject in Pāṇini’, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 25.79-87.

1983. ‘kas'mi:ras'abda:mRta 8.3.3: An Account of the Ergative in the Paninian Linguistic Tradition’, Indian Linguistics 44:1-4.39-42.

1984a. ‘The anti-absolutive in Kashmiri and Sumerian’, Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic

Society 20.181-191.

1984b. ‘Kashmiri and types of split accusativity in South Asian languages’, South Asian Language Analysis 6.

1985a. ‘Coexistent analyses and participant roles in Indo-Aryan’, in Zide, A. R. K. et al. (eds.), 264-285.

1985b. ‘The super-anti-absolutive in Kashmiri’, in De Lancey, S. & Tomlin, R. S. (eds.), 142-151.

1992. ‘On Identifying the Conceptual Restructuring of Passive as Ergative in Indo-Aryan’, in Deshpande, M. M. & Bhate, S. (eds.),

177-199.

Hook, P. E. & Kaul, V. K. 1989. ‘Case alternation, transitionality, and the adoption of direct objects in Kashmiri’, Indian Linguistics

48.52-69.

Hook, P. E. & Koul, O. N. 1984a. ‘On the grammar of derived transitives and causatives in Kashmiri’, in Koul, O. N. & Hook, P. E. (eds.),

90-122.

1984b. ‘Pronominal suffixes and split ergativity in Kashmiri’, in Koul, O. N. & Hook, P. E. (eds.), 123-135.

1997. ‘Fluid Ergativity in Gujarati and Kashmiri and the Notion of Suspension’, Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the

Chicago Linguistic Society 33:2.163-173.

2004. ‘Case as agreement. Non-nominative subjects in Eastern Shina, non-dative objects in Kashmiri and Poguli, and labile subjects

in Kashmiri and Gujarati intransitive inceptives’, in Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Vol. I: 213-225.

Hook, P. E., Koul, O. N., and Koul, A. K. 1987. ‘Differential S-marking in Marathi, Hindi-Urdu, and Kashmiri’, Papers from the Annual

Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23.148-165.

Jacobi, H. 1898. ‘Der Akzent im Mittelindischen’, Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Sprachforschung 35.563-578.

Jain, J. 1981. ‘The Hindi passive’, Papers in linguistics 14.217-232.

Jamison, S. W. 1979. ‘The Case of the Agent in Indo-European’, Die Sprache 25.129-143.

2000. ‘Lurching towards Ergativity: Expressions of Agency in the Niya Documents’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African

Studies 63:1.64-80.

Junghare, I. Y. 1972. ‘The perfect aspect in Marathi, Bhojpuri, and Maithili’, Indian Linguistics 33:2.128-134.

1983. ‘Markers of definiteness in Indo-Aryan’, Indian Linguistics 44.43-53.

1985. ‘Topic Prominence: An Areal Linguistic Feature’, Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 10.80-90.

Kachru, Y. 1981. ‘Transitivity and volitionality in Hindi-Urdu’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11:2.181-193.

1986. ‘The syntax of Dakkhini: A study in language variation and language change’, in Krishnamurti, Bh. et al. (eds.), 165-178.

1987. ‘Ergativity, subjecthood and topicality in Hindi-Urdu’, Lingua 71.223-238.

1990. ‘Experiencer and other oblique subjects in Hindi’, in Verma, M. K. & Mohanan, K. P. (eds.), 59-76.

Kachru, Y. & Bhatia, T. K. 1977. ‘On reflexivization in Hindi-Urdu and its theoretical implications’, Indian Linguistics 38:1.21-38.

Kachru, Y., Kachru, B. B., and Bhatia, T. K. 1976. ‘The notion “Subject”, a note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri, and Panjabi’, in Verma, M. K.

(ed.), 79-108.

Kachru, Y. & Pandharipande, R. 1979. ‘On ergativity in selected South Asian Languages’, South Asian Literary Association 1.193-209.

Khan, B. S. A. 1987. ‘The Ergative Case in Hindi-Urdu’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 17:1.91-101.

Khokhlova, L. V. 1992. ‘Trends in the Development of Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan’, Osmania Papers in Linguistics 18.71-97.

1995. ‘The Development of Patient-Oriented Constructions in Late Western NIA Languages’, Osmania Papers in Linguistics

21.15-54.

2000. ‘Typological Evolution of New Indo-Aryan Languages’, Berliner Indologische Studien 13/14.117-142.

2001. ‘Ergativity Attrition in the History of Western New Indo-Aryan Languages’, in Singh, R. (ed.), 159-184.

2006. ‘Clarifying the typological status of the Marwari language’. Talk at the 19th European Conference on Modern South Asian

Studies, 27-30 June 2006, Leiden, the Netherlands.

2009. ‘Some implications of Alignment Changes in the Historical Development of Three Western NIA Languages: Punjabi, Gujarati

and Rajasthani’. Talk at the Workshop “Reconstructing Alignment Systems”, 14-15 May 2009, Bergen.

Klaiman, M. H. 1978. ‘Arguments against a passive origin of the IA ergative’, Papers from the Regional Meetings of the Chicago

Linguistic Society 14.204-216.

1979. ‘On the status of the subjecthood hierarchy in Hindi’, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 8:1.17-31.

1980. ‘Bengali dative subject’, Lingua 51.275-295.

1981. Volitionality and Subject in Bengali: A Study of Semantic Parameters in Grammatical Processes. Bloomington: Indiana

University Linguistics Club.

1982. ‘Arguments against the ingestive verbs hypothesis’, in Koul, O. N. (ed.), 134-145.

1986. ‘Semantic parameters and the South Asian linguistic area’, in Krishnamurti, Bh. et al. (eds.), 179-194.

1987. ‘Mechanism of ergativity in South Asia’, Lingua 71.61-102.

Koul, O. N. 1977. Linguistic studies in Kashmiri. Chandigarh: Bahri.

(ed.) 1982. Topics in Hindi linguistics, vol. II. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.

Koul, O. N. & Hook, P. E. (eds). 1984. Aspects of Kashmiri linguistics. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.

Krishnamurti, Bh., Masica, C. P., and Sinha, A. K. (eds.) 1986. South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence and Diglossia. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass.

Lahiri, U. 1986. ‘The ergative construction in (Modern) Western Indo-Aryan and its absence in (Modern) Eastern Indo-Aryan’, Paper

given at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.

Lakshmibai, B. 1973. A case grammar of Hindi. Agra: Central Institute of Hindi.

Levanat-Peicic, M. 2005. ‘Aspect and Ergativity in the Hindi Language’, Suvremena Lingvistika 31.19-34.

Li, C. 2007a. ‘Split ergativity and split intransitivity in Nepali’, Lingua 117:8.1462-1482.

2007b. ‘Split Ergativity in Nepali and Its Typological Significance’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics

13:1.169-182.

Li, C. N. (ed.) 1977. Mechanism of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Lorimer, D. 1925. ‘The forms and nature of the transitive verb in Shina (Gilgiti dialect)’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African

Studies 3.467-493.

Lust, B. C., Wali, K., Gair, J. W. and Subbarao, K. V. (eds.) 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: a

principled typology. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Magier, D. 1983a. Topics in the grammar of Marwari. University of California. (Ph.D. dissertation)

1983b. ‘Components of ergativity in Marwari’, Papers from the Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 19.244-255.

1985. ‘Case and transitivity in Marwari’, in Zide, A. R. K. et al. (eds.), 149-159.

1987. ‘The Transitivity Prototype: Evidence from Hindi’, Word 38.187-199.

Mahajan, A. 1997. ‘Universal Grammar and the typology of ergative Languages’, in Artemis, A. & Hall, A. T. (eds.), 35-57.

2004. ‘On the origin of non-nominative subjects’, in Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Vol. I: 283-299.

Masica, C. P. 1982a. ‘Identified object marking in Hindi and other languages’, in Koul, O. N. (ed.), 16-50.

1982b. ‘Ergativity in South Asia’, in Mistry, P. J. (ed.), 1-11.

1986. ‘Definiteness-marking in South Asian languages’, in Krishnamurti, Bh. et al. (eds.), 123-146.

1990. ‘Varied Case Marking in Obligational Constructions’, in Verma, M. K. & Mohanan, K. P. (eds.), 335-342.

1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2001. ‘The Definition and Significance of Linguistic Areas: Methods, Pitfalls, and Possibilities (with Special Reference to the Validity of

South Asia as a Linguistic Area)’, in Singh, R. (ed.), 205-267.

Matsumoto, K. 1993. ‘Problem of Ergativity in Indo-European’, The Journal of Indo-European Studies 21.303-330.

Matthews, W. K. 1952. ‘The ergative construction in Modern Indo-Aryan’, Lingua 3.391-406.

Meenakshi, K. 1991. ‘The genitive in Pāṇini and in epic Sanskrit’, in Hock, H. H. (ed.), 145-152.

Miller, R. A. 1992. ‘Indic Models in Tibetan Grammars’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 112:1.103-109.

Miltner, V. 1964. ‘Old Gurjar, Middle Gujarati and Middle Rajasthani Sentence Structure Compared’, Bhāratīya Vidyā 24.9-31.

1965. ‘From OIA passive to NIA active’, Asian and African Studies I: 143-146

1966. Early Hindi Morphology and Syntax. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelstrí.

1995. Old Hindi Reader. Prague: Karolinum.

Mistry, P. J. 1976. ‘Subject in Gujarati: An Examination of Verb-agreement Phenomenon’, in Verma, M.K. (ed.), 240-269.

Mistry, P. J. (ed.) 1982. South Asian review: studies in South Asian languages & linguistics. Jacksonville, FL: South Asian Literary

Association 6.3.

2000. ‘Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Gujarati’, in Lust, B. C. et al. (eds.), 333-395.

2004. ‘Subjecthood of non-nominatives in Gujarati’, in Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Vol. I: 1-31.

Mohanan, T. 1993. ‘Verb agreement in complex predicates in Hindi’, Verma, M. K. (ed.), 163-175.

1994. Argument structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

Montaut, A. 1991. Aspects, voix et diathèses en hindi moderne. Louvain-Paris: Éditions Peeters.

1994. ‘On the Correlation between morphological cases and semantic functions in Hindi/Urdu’, in Davison, A. & Smith, F. M. (eds.),

201-218.

1996. ‘La genèse des systèmes accompli et futur en indo-aryen’, Journal Asiatique 284:2.325-360.

1997. ‘L'Ergativite en indo-aryen’, Faits de Langues 10.57-64.

2004a. ‘Oblique main arguments in Hindi as localizing predications. Questioning the category of subject’, Bhaskararao, P. &

Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Vol. II: 33-56.

Montaut, A. & Muruganyani, A. 2009. ‘The Emergence of Oblique Coding of First Arguments in Indian Languages’. Talk at the

Workshop “Reconstructing Alignment Systems”, 14-15 May 2009, Bergen.

Montaut, A. & Pilot-Raichoor, C. 1994. ‘Semantique actancielle et cas morphologiques en hindi et en badaga’, Langages 28:113.90-

112.

Narasimhan, B. 1995. ‘A lexical semantic explanation for ‘quirky’ case marking in Hindi’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Linguistic Society of America.

Nespital, H. 1986. ‘On the Relationship of Genus Verbi, Nominative, and Ergative Constructions in Indo-Aryan from Synchronic and

Diachronic Perspectives’, Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 47.127-158.

Olphen, H. van. 1975. ‘Ergative and causatives in Hindi’, Orbis 24.184-204.

Onishi, M. 2001a. ‘Introduction. Non-canonically marked sujects and objects: Parameters and Properties’, in Aikhenvald, A. Y. et al.

(eds.), 1-51.

2001b. ‘Non-canonically marked A/S in Bengali’, in Aikhenvald, A. Y. et al. (eds.), 113-147.

Pandharipande, R. 1981. ‘Transitivity in Hindi’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11:2.161-179.

Pandharipande, R. & Kachru, Y. 1977. ‘Relational grammar, ergativity, and Hindi-Urdu’, Lingua 41.217-238.

Payne, J. R. 1980. ‘The decay of ergativity in Pamir languages’, Lingua 51: 147-186.

Payne, J. R. 1995. ‘Inflecting Postpositions in Indic and Kashmiri’, in Plank, F. (ed.), 283-298.

Peterson, J. M. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pāli and the Emergence of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. München: Lincom Europa.

Pirejko, L. A. 1979. ‘On the genesis of the ergative construction in Indo-Iranian’, in Plank, F. (ed.), 481-488.

Plank, F. (ed.) 1979a. Ergativity: towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.

(ed.) 1995. Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

Poudel, T. 2007. ‘Ergativity and Stage/Individual Level Predications in Manipuri’. Talk at the Workshop on “Differential Case Marking”,

Stuttgart.

2008a. ‘Nepali Ergativity: A Historical Perspective’. Talk at the Workshop on “Case and Alignment in Indo-European”, Bergen.

2008b. ‘The evolution of the ergative in Nepali’. Talk at the “14th Himalayan Languages Symposium”, Gothenburg.

2008c. ‘Ergative/Nominative Alternations in Manipuri Intransitive Constructions’. Talk at the Workshop on “Transitivity and Case

Alternations”, Stuttgart.

2008d. ‘Diachronic and semantic aspects of ergativity’. Talk at the Workshop on “A Non-Canonical Perspective on Case”,

Konstanz.

Pray, B. R. 1976. ‘From Passive to Ergative in Indo-Aryan’, in Verma, M. K. (ed.), 195-211.

Régamey, C. 1954. ‘A propos de la ‘construction ergative’ en indo-aryen’, in Sprachgeschichte und Worbedeutung. Festschrift A.

Debrunner, Bern: Francke, 363-381.

Rosen, C. and Kashi, W. 1988. ‘Twin passives, inversion and multistratalism in Marathi’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7.1-50.

Rumsey, A. 1987a. ‘The Chimera of Proto-Indo-European Ergativity: Lessons for Historical Syntax’, Lingua 71.297-318.

1987b. ‘Was Proto-Indo-European an Ergative Language?’, The Journal of Indo-European Studies 15.19-37.

Saleemi, A. P. 1995. ‘On the Acquisition of Split Ergativity: Some Evidence from Urdu’, in Clark, Eve V. (ed.), 82-93.

Sani, S. 1974. ‘La costruzione dei verbi transitivi al passato in hindi’, Studi e saggi linguistici (Pisa) 14.252-265.

Schokker, G. H. 1969-1970. ‘The jānā-passive in the NIA Languages’, Indo-Iranian Journal 12.1-23.

Septfonds, D. 1997. ‘Anti-Impersonal Constructions in Pashto’, Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata 26:2.271-306.

Shibatani, M. & Pardeshi, P. 2001. ‘Dative Subject Constructions in South Asian Languages’, in Singh, R. (ed.), 311-347.

Shmal'shtig, U. R. 1985. ‘Ergativity in Indo-European Constructions with the Predicate in Middle Aorist’, Voprosy yazykoznaniya

34:6.25-34.

Singh, B. 1966. Dialect of Delhi. New Delhi: Representative, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg.

Singh, R. (ed.) 1999. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. New Delhi – Thousand Oaks – London: Sage

Publications.

(ed.) 2001. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages. Contact,

Convergence and Typology. New Delhi – Thousand Oaks – London: Sage Publications.

Singh, U. N. 1983. ‘Subjecthood hierarchy in Maithili’, Indian Linguistics 44.75-81.

Sinha, A. K. 1976. ‘The notion of subject and agent in Hindi’, in Verma, M. K. (ed.), 109-136.

Skalmowski, W. 1974. Transitive verb constructions in the Pamir and Dardic languages, Studia Indoeuropejskie. Prace Komisji

Językoznawstwa 37: 205-212.

Śrīvāstav, D. 1970. Historical Syntax of Early Hindi Prose. Calcutta: Atima Prakashan.

Starosta, S. 2001. ‘Ergativity in Gujarati, Hindi, and Pashto: The Evidence from Causative Constructions’, in Singh, R. (ed.), 411-456.

Strnad, J. 2013. Morphology and Syntax of Old Hindī: Edition and Analysis of One Hundred Kabīr vānī Poems from Rājasthān

[Indological Library 45]. Leiden: Brill.

Stroński, K. 2010a. ‘Variation of ergativity patterns in Indo-Aryan’, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46:2.237-253.

Stroński, K. 2010b. ‘Non-nominative subjects in Rajasthani and Central Pahari’, Lingua Posnaniensis LII 1: 81-97.

Stroński, K. 2011. Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

Stump, G. T. 1983. ‘The Elimination of Ergative Patterns of Case Marking and Verbal Agreement in Modern Indic Languages’, Ohio State

University Working Papers in Linguistics 27.140-164.

Subbarao, K. V. & Arora, A. 1988. ‘On extreme convergence: the case of Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu’, Indian Linguistics 49.92-108.

Tessitori, L. P. 1913. ‘On the Origin of the Dative and Genitive Postpositions in Gujarati and Marwari’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society 553-567.

Tournadre, N. 1997a. ‘Les specificites de l'ergativite tibetaine par rapport a celle des langues indiennes’, Faits de Langues 10.145-154.

Traugott, E. C., LaBrum, R., & Shepherd, S. (eds.) 1980. Papers from the fourth International Conference on Historical linguistics.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Turbiani, E. 1981. ‘The agentive construction in Pañjābī’. (Manoscritto non pubblicato)

Verbeke, S. 2013a. Alignment and Ergativity in New Indo-Aryan Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 51]. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Verbeke, S. 2013b. ‘Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions’, Linguistics 51.3: 585-610.

Verma, M. K. (ed.) 1976a. The notion of Subject in South Asian Languages. Madison: Department of South Asian Studies, University of

Wisconsin.

1976b. ‘The notion of subject and the data from Nepali’, in Verma, M. K. (ed.), 270-286.

(ed.) 1993a. Complex Predicates in South Asian Languages. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors.

1993b. ‘Complex predicates and light verbs in hindī’, in Verma, M. K. (ed.), 197-215.

Verma, M. K. & Mohanan, K. P. (eds.) 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Palo Alto: The Center for the Study of

Language and Information, Stanford University.

Wali, K. 2004. ‘Non-nominative subjects in Marathi’, in Bhaskararao, P. & Subbarao, K. V. (eds.), Vol. II: 223-252.

Wallace, W. D. 1982. ‘The Evolution of Ergative Syntax in Nepali’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12.147-211.

1985a. ‘Constituent roles and clause union in Nepali’, in Zide, A. R. K., et. al. (eds.), 119-148.

1985b. Subjects and subjecthood in Nepali: an analysis of Nepali clause structure and its challenges to Relational Grammar and

Government and Binding. University of Illinois. (Ph.D. dissertation)

Zakharyn, B. 1979. ‘On the formation of ergativity in Indo-Aryan and Dardic’, Osmania Papers in Linguistics 5.50-71.

Zide, A. R. K., Magier, D., and Schiller, E. (eds.) 1985. Proceedings of the conference on participant roles: South Asia and adjacent areas.

Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.