Publications by Topic (incomplete)

back to home

Syntax, semantics, and typology
- Theory of Functional/Cognitive/typological linguistics
- Argument structure and case theory
- Diachronic syntax, especially grammaticalization
- Deixis and point-of-view
- Particular typological structures of interest
Tibeto-Burman
- Tibetan (primarily syntax and semantics)
- Comparative verb morphology (primarily verb agreement)
- Other T-B languages and miscellaneous
- Miscellaneous Sino-Tibetan and Southeast Asian
Languages of the Americas

Syntax, semantics, and typology

Functional/Cognitive theory

1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.3:626-57.
1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. R. Tomlin, ed., Discourse Relations and Cognitive Units, pp. 53-68. Benjamins.
1991. Event construal and case role assignment. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
1994. Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages, pp. 1-22. Boulder: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Colorado.
1995ms. Verbal case frames in English and Tibetan.
1997. What an innatist argument should look like. in T. Haukioja, M-L Helasvuo, and M. Miestamo, eds., SKY 1997 (1997 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland), pp. 7-24.
1997. Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese. pp. 51-69 in J. Bybee, J. Haiman, and S. A. Thompson, eds., Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Benjamins, 1997.

Transitivity, actance/argument structure, and case theory

1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.3:626-57.
1982. Aspect, transitivity, and viewpoint. P. Hopper, ed., Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. pp. 167-83. Benjamins.
1982. Modern Tibetan: A case study in ergative typology. J. of Linguistic Research 2.1:21-31.
1982. Agentivity and causation: Data from Newari. Proceeding of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 54-63.
1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8.2:181-213.
1984. Transitivity and ergative case in Lhasa Tibetan. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 131-40.
1984. Categories of non-volitional actor in Lhasa Tibetan. A. Zide et. al., eds., Proc. of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and Adjacent Areas, pp. 58-70. IULC.
1984. Agentivity in syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession on Agentivity and Causation.
1985. On active typology and the nature of agentivity. F. Plank, ed., Relational Typology. Mouton.
1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causa- tion. Proc. of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65-72.
1986. Invited comment on Wierzbicka, 'Semantics of the "internal dative" in English. Quaderni di Semantica VII, no. 1:140-2.
1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. R. Tomlin, ed., Discourse Relations and Cognitive Units, pp. 53-68. Benjamins.
1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1.3:289-321.
1990. Cross-linguistic evidence for the structure of the Agent prototype. Proc. of the 29th Child Language Research Forum.
1991. Event construal and case role assignment. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
1995ms. Verbal case frames in English and Tibetan.
1995ms. Argument structure and verb lexicalization patterns in English, Tibetan, and Klamath. Dept. of Linguistics, Rice University, Nov. 1995.
1996. rev. of R.M.W. Dixon, Ergativity. Journal of Linguistics 32:173-177.
1996. Argument structure of Klamath bipartite stems. SSILA Conference, San Diego, Jan. 7, 1996.
1997. What an innatist argument should look like. in T. Haukioja, M-L Helasvuo, and M. Miestamo, eds., SKY 1997 (1997 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland), pp. 7-24.
2001. The universal basis of case. Logos and Language.

Diachronic syntax

(see also Comparative T-B verb morphology, Miscellaneous Sino-Tibetan)

1985. The analysis-synthesis-lexis cycle in Tibeto-Burman: A case study in motivated change. J. Haiman, ed., Iconicity in Syntax, pp. 367-89. Benjamins.
1991. Chronological strata of suffix classes in the Klamath verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 57:426- 445.
1991. The origins of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan. Studies in Language 15:1.1-23.
1994. Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages, pp. 1-22. Boulder: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Colorado.
1997. Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese. pp. 51-69 in J. Bybee, J. Haiman, and S. A. Thompson, eds., Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Benjamins, 1997.
1999. Lexical prefixes and the bipartite stem construction in Klamath. International Journal of American Linguistics 65.1.56-83.
to appear. Grammaticalization. in G. Booij, C. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, eds., Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. New York: De Gruyter.

Deixis and point-of-view

1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.3:626-57.
1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. R. Tomlin, ed., Discourse Relations and Cognitive Units, pp. 53-68. Benjamins.

Ergative and other case-marking patterns

(see also Transitivity, actance/argument structure, and case theory)

1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.3:626-57.
1982. Modern Tibetan: A case study in ergative typology. J. of Linguistic Research 2.1:21-31.
1985. On active typology and the nature of agentivity. F. Plank, ed., Relational Typology. Mouton.
1996. rev. of R.M.W. Dixon, Ergativity. Journal of Linguistics 32:173-177.

Inverse systems

1981. Parameters of empathy. J. of Linguistic Research 1.3:40-49.
1981. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6.1:83-102.

Evidentiality and mirativity

1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causation. Proc. of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65-72.
1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. W. Chafe and J. Nichols, eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 203-13. Ablex.
1990. Notes on evidentiality in Hare. International Journal of American Linguistics 56.152-8.
1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25:39-62.
1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1.1:33-52.
2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33.3:369-382.

Tibeto-Burman

Tibetan

1982. Modern Tibetan: A case study in ergative typology. J. of Linguistic Research 2.1:21-31.
1984. Transitivity and ergative case in Lhasa Tibetan. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 131-40.
1984. Categories of non-volitional actor in Lhasa Tibetan. A. Zide et. al., eds., Proc. of the Conference on Participant Roles: South Asia and Adjacent Areas, pp. 58-70. IULC.
1984. Agentivity in syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession on Agentivity and Causation.
1985. On active typology and the nature of agentivity. F. Plank, ed., Relational Typology. Mouton.
1985. Lhasa Tibetan evidentials and the semantics of causa- tion. Proc. of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 65-72.
1986. Evidentiality and volitionality in Tibetan. W. Chafe and J. Nichols, eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 203-13. Ablex.
1986ms. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. 19th ICSTLL.
1990. Ergativity and the cognitive model of event structure in Lhasa Tibetan. Cognitive Linguistics 1.3:289-321.
1990. Tibetan evidence for Nungish metathesis. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area.
1990. Contour tones from lost syllables in Central Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area.
1991. The origins of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan. Studies in Language 15:1.1-23.
1998. Semantic categorization in Tibetan honorific nouns. Anthropological Linguistics 40:109-23.
1999. Relativization in Tibetan. in Yogendra Yadava and Warren Glover, eds., Studies in Nepalese Linguistics, pp. 231-49. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.
to appear. Lhasa Tibetan. In G. Thurgood and R. LaPolla, The Sino-Tibetan Languages. London: Curzon.
to appear. Classical Tibetan. In G. Thurgood and R. LaPolla, The Sino-Tibetan Languages. London: Curzon.

Comparative T-B verb morphology

1981. Parameters of empathy. J. of Linguistic Research 1.3:40-49.
1981. The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6.1:83-102.
1982. Tangut and Tibeto-Burman morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7.2:100-8.
1985. The analysis-synthesis-lexis cycle in Tibeto-Burman: A case study in motivated change. J. Haiman, ed., Iconicity in Syntax, pp. 367-89. Benjamins.
1988. On the evolution of the Kham agreement paradigm. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11.2:51-61.
1988ms. On the origins of the Kuki-Chin agreement prefixes. 21st ICSTLL, Lund.
1989. Verb agreement in Proto-Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52:315-33. (Chinese tr. appeared as "Yuanshi Zang-Mianyu dungcide rencheng fanchou", Minzu Yicong 1993.2:34-45, 1993.3:38-42).v

Other T-B languages and miscellaneous

1978ms. Mood particles in Sino-Tibetan. 11th Int. Conf. on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.
1978. (with Lon Diehl and LaRaw Maran). A localistic account of aspect in Jinghpaw. and The Tibeto-Burman tense-aspect mechanisms. University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics 2.4:49-88.
1981. Parameters of empathy. J. of Linguistic Research 1.3:40-49. (Jinghpaw)
1982. Tangut and Tibeto-Burman morphology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 7.2:100-8.
1982. Agentivity and causation: Data from Newari. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 54-63.
1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8.2:181-213. (Newari)
1984. Etymological notes on Tibeto-Burman case particles. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 8.l.59-77.
1986ms. Relativization as nominalization in Tibetan and Newari. 19th ICSTLL.
1988. On the evolution of the Kham agreement paradigm. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 11.2:51-61.
1988ms. On the origins of the Kuki-Chin agreement prefixes. 21st ICSTLL, Lund.
1989. rev. of B. Michailovksy, La langue hayu. Language 65:828-32.
1992. Sunwar copulas. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 15:1.31-38.
1992. The historical status of the conjunct/disjunct pattern in Tibeto-Burman. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 25:39-62.
Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese. pp. 51-69 in J. Bybee, J. Haiman, and S. A. Thompson, eds., Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Benjamins, 1997.

Miscellaneous Sino-Tibetan and Southeast Asian

1986. Notes on the history of Tai classifier systems. C. Craig, ed., Noun Classes and Categorization, pp. 437-52. Benjamins.
1987. The Sino-Tibetan languages. B. Comrie, ed., The World's Major Languages, pp. 797-810. Croom Helm.
1992. The Sino-Tibetan languages. W. Bright, ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol 3, pp. 445-7. NY: Oxford University Press.

Languages of the Americas

Klamath

Morphological parallels between Klamath and Wintu. J. Redden, ed., Proc. of the 1987 Hokan-Penutian Conference, pp. 50- 60. Carbondale, IL: Dept. of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University.
1987. Klamath and Wintu pronouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 53.461-4.
1988. Klamath stem structure in genetic and areal perspective. S. DeLancey, ed., Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian Workshop, pp. 31-9.
Diachronic notes on the Klamath verb suffixes. S. DeLancey, ed., Papers from the 1989 Hokan-Penutian Workshop, pp. 18-27.
1992. Klamath and Sahaptian numerals. International Journal of American Linguistics 58:235-39.
1991. Chronological strata of suffix classes in the Klamath verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 57:426- 445.
1996. Argument structure of Klamath bipartite stems. SSILA Conference, San Diego, Jan. 7, 1996.
1999. Lexical prefixes and the bipartite stem construction in Klamath. International Journal of American Linguistics 65.1.56-83.

Comparative Penutian

1987. Morphological parallels between Klamath and Wintu. J. Redden, ed., Proc. of the 1987 Hokan-Penutian Conference, pp. 50-60. Carbondale, IL: Dept. of Linguistics, Southern Illinois University.
1987. Klamath and Wintu pronouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 53.461-4.
1988. (with C. Genetti and N. Rude). Some Sahaptian-Klamath- Tsimshianic lexical sets. William Shipley, eds, In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, pp. 195-224.
1992. Klamath and Sahaptian numerals. International Journal of American Linguistics 58:235-39.
1994. Some Klamath-Maiduan comparative data. Hokan-Penutian Workshop, Eugene, July 9, 1994.
1996. Penutian in the bipartite stem belt: Disentangling areal and genetic correspondences. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Historical Topics in Native American Languages.
1997. (with Victor Golla) The Penutian hypothesis: Retrospect and prospect. IJAL 63:171-202.

Western North American areal patterns

1988. Klamath stem structure in genetic and areal perspective. S. DeLancey, ed., Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian Workshop, pp. 31-9.
1996. Penutian in the bipartite stem belt: Disentangling areal and genetic correspondences. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Historical Topics in Native American Languages.

Miscellaneous New World

1984. Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8.2:181-213.
1990. Notes on evidentiality in Hare. International Journal of American Linguistics 56.152-8.
(to appear) On grammatical comparative evidence and its interpretation. in Allan Taylor, ed., Language and Prehistory in the Americas. Stanford University Press.