4-HSK Syntax Chapter 59 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/297767559
Reference grammars
Chapter · January 2015
CITATIONS READS
0 932
1 author:
Irina Nikolaeva
SOAS, University of London
59 PUBLICATIONS 485 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Prominent Possessors View project
Endangered languages and cultures of Siberia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Irina Nikolaeva on 08 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

59. Reference Grammars 2037
59. Reference Grammars

1. Introduction
2. Older reference grammars
3. The descriptive framework of Basic Linguistic Theory
4. Case studies
5. Conclusion
6. References (selected)
Abstract
Since the mid-1980s most reference grammars describe syntax in terms of Basic Linguis-
tic Theory, a cumulative descriptive framework that has acquired its methods and con-
cepts from various sources, from traditional grammar to linguistic typology and theoreti-
cal syntax. It employs an informal, user-friendly metalanguage so that every reader is
able to access the language data independently of the theoretical framework in which
(s)he is working. The role of syntactic theory in language description mainly consists in
defining what is considered to be essential for the structure of the language and what
questions a fieldworker can ask when collecting the data. In return, the data from refer-
ence grammars enrich syntactic theory, as they can be used to evaluate possible con-
straints on human language and extend our understanding of human linguistic capacity.
1. Introduction
This chapter addresses the presentation of syntax in reference grammars. The emphasis
will be on relatively comprehensive descriptions of languages that had previously been
completely undescribed or described only scarcely. In the words of Evans (2007: 480),
these grammars “are our main vehicle for representing the linguistic structure of the
world’s 6,000 languages”. It is well known that different types of grammars target differ-
ent groups of readers (e.g. Mosel 2006: 42), but I will only be dealing with grammars
meant to be used by academic specialists. This audience can be taken to include scholars
in general linguistics, especially in typology, language universals and comparative syn-
tax, together with students of the language and language family, and of language endan-
germent in general (cf. Comrie and Smith 1977). I will consider the grammars that have
appeared within the various series of grammatical monographs, such as Mouton Gram-
mar Library, Lingua Descriptive Series and Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions (al-
though the latter series was discontinued), as well as those within a series of studies
specialising in a particular region (e.g. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region,
Grammatical Analyses of African Languages, Studies in African Linguistics (Lincom),
Studies in Asian Linguistics, and Pacific Linguistics), together with some grammars that
were published outside the framework of any series. The chapter will not for the most
part discuss in detail shorter grammatical sketches (e.g. LINCOM’s series Languages of
the World. Materials), grammars which specifically state that they emphasise phonology
2038 IX. Beyond Syntax
and morphology, grammars written in languages other than English, grammars that cite
language examples using national scripts, nor grammars that do not follow modern lin-
guistic practice in providing glosses.
The chapter will start with a short overview of older reference grammars written
within structuralist and early transformational frameworks (Section 2). However, it will
mostly focus on the descriptions written from approximately the mid-1980s, because
syntax occupies a much more prominent role in grammars written in the past 25 years
or so than in those written earlier. In Section 3 I will address the major descriptive
framework of Basic Linguistic Theory and will argue, following several previous au-
thors, that it is an important theoretical tool. The following interrelated points will be
discussed: the relation to other linguistic theories and linguistic typology, the methods
of collecting the data, the choice of topics in a syntactic description, and the terminology.
In Section 4 I will present two detailed case studies of how syntactic topics are treated
in reference grammars. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Older reference grammars

Earlier grammars often privileged phonology and morphology, but devoted relatively
little attention to sentence structure. This is the case with many grammars of native
American languages published in the University of California Publications in Linguistics
series, initiated in the 1930s by Mary Haas. For example, in the description of Eastern
Pomo morphology is discussed on 138 pages (McLendon 1972: 37−175) and a very
detailed description of nominal and verbal forms and paradigms (word formation and
derivation) is provided. However, only five pages are devoted to syntax (McLendon
1972: 176−181). All they discuss is the basics of word order and the expression of major
grammatical functions such as subject, direct object and locative adjuncts. This is also
the case for Langdon’s (1970) grammar of Diegueño and LeCron’s (1969) grammar
of Tarascan.
Grammars written in the 1960s and 1970s that do deal with syntax at some length
display considerable variation in their theoretical frameworks. In the words of Payne
and Weber (2006), they are not examples of language documentation and description,
but rather provide a “ground for competing conceptualizations of linguistic theory”.
European structuralism is represented by French- and English-language grammars
(e.g. Dez 1980; Adelaar 1977; Cloarec-Heiss 1986). The basic unit of a structuralist
description is taken to be the morpheme, which leads to a primarily distributional ap-
proach: these grammars discuss the position and function of each morpheme in great
detail. The syntax is treated together with morphology. Most syntactic facts are described
in terms of the use of the forms that result from the application of morphological rules
and the positional processes that combine words into greater units. Only basic syntactic
facts are usually described, while the information on e.g. pragmatically motivated varia-
tions in constituent order, anaphoric processes or the structure of complex sentences
is minimal.
A number of grammars represent the tagmemics approach, a neo-structuralist frame-
work developed in the 1950s by Kenneth Pike (with later additions by Robert Longacre)
and associated mostly with the work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, an organiza-
tion of missionary linguists devoted to Bible translations. Tagmemics as a system of

linguistic analysis was primarily designed to assist linguists efficiently to extract coherent
descriptions out of the corpora of fieldwork data. It was applied to the description of a
large number of hitherto unrecorded languages, mostly from the Americas, in the 1960s
and 1970s, for instance, Allin (1970) and Glass and Hackett (1970).
Tagmemics differs from alternative systems of grammatical analysis in that it defines
the basic units of language (tagmemes) as a composite of form and meaning, a “unit-in-
context.” The tagmeme, as a fundamental unit of language, is a combination of a syntag-
matic position and the actual elements that can fill it. One part of the tagmeme is the
“slot” and the other is the “filler”. For example, one such tagmeme, at the syntactic level
of analysis, might be the noun-as-subject, where the noun is a class that fills the subject
slot in a construction. A filler may also be a bound morpheme. In the grammar of
Pitjantjatjara (Glass and Hackett 1970), oblique enclitics (pronouns) typically manifest
the object tagmeme, but sometimes they represent location or source tagmemes (probably
due to applicativization). The language structure is deeply hierarchical, in several simul-
taneous ways. Sounds and intonation form a phonological hierarchy; words and senten-
ces form a grammatical hierarchy; and meanings form a referential hierarchy. The very
same structure that appears at the lower levels also appears at the higher levels: sounds
form words, words form sentences, and sentences form discourse. The discussion nor-
mally starts with the lower syntactic unit, the word, and then concentrates on phrases,
clauses, sentences and several levels of discourse.
Transformational-generative grammars usually apply some version of Chomsky
(1965). These grammars are written based on a corpus of grammatical and ungrammati-
cal sentences obtained through introspection or direct elicitation. The grammar ensures
that it generates all grammatical sentences and excludes ungrammatical ones. According
to Koutsoudas (1966), the general analytic procedure of grammar writing consists of
several steps: (i) establishing a list of morphemes with a gloss and a categorial label;
(ii) establishing the categories such as the subject or the object and the basic sentence
patterns; (iii) establishing which classes occur in which position; (iv) establishing their
combinations, variations and optionality; (v) positing larger syntactic constituents and
representing them by tree diagrams; (vi) comparing the types; (vii) ordering the syntactic
rules; and (viii) checking if the solution works. The only way to check the data is to
rely on a native speaker’s intuition. When a native speaker is not available, the analyst
should write “the most general and plausible grammar possible” (Koutsoudas 1966: 47),
but in any case there must be only one structural description assigned to each sentence
in the grammar.
True, this theory was not designed to be a purely descriptive tool, and Koutsoudas’
recommendations mostly concern the so-called “scientific” grammars. However, a simi-
lar methodology was applied in reference grammars, which tested the applicability of
the generative model to little studied non-Indo-European languages. Examples include a
grammar of Wichita (Rood 1976), a grammar of Tuscarora (Mithun 1976), a grammar
of Mokelese (Harrison 1976), a grammar of Slave (Rice 1989), and a grammar of Hua
(Haiman 1980) (although in the latter grammatical relations are defined “by labels”
rather than configurationally). These grammars assume deep and surface structure,
phrase-structure rules, transformational rules such as pronoun deletion, agreement, pro-
noun shift and the like, and introduce visual representations in the form of phrase struc-
ture trees.
One example of a grammatical description of basic syntactic processes completed

within the framework of Relational Grammar is the grammar of Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi
1978). The major transformational processes in this language appear to be precisely
those that are central to this theory, because they affect grammatical relations. The gram-
mar provides a very careful description of behavioural properties of major grammatical
relations understood as syntactic primitives, and valence-changing rules of objectiviza-
tion (applicativization), subjectivization, possessor advancement and so on. The proper-
ties of derived grammatical relations are also addressed. Since the description is very
much influenced by what counted as central to the theory of Relational Grammar, the
presentation of other aspects of syntax are sketchy. For example, the TAM system is dealt
with in the Appendix, and such topics as coordination, dependent clauses or questions
are not addressed at all.
The majority of modern users agree that many of these earlier grammars have become
dated. First, they are very difficult to read due to idiosyncratic terminology and represen-
tational conventions. A grammar that draws heavily on the terminology and formalism
of a particular syntactic framework is not easily accessible for a reader who is not trained
in the same grammatical tradition as the author of the desription. This point is strongly
made in Dench and Evans (2006: 6−7) and Rice (2006b: 390), who emphasize that for
the purpose of general accessibility things should be said in plain words, and that techni-
cal terminology should be used sparingly and with great care. Linguists setting out to
write a reference grammar of a little-known language should write in a kind of theoretical
“lingua franca” whatever their own theoretical orientation, if they want the grammar to
be accessible to as broad a readership as possible.
Second, earlier grammars attempted to describe a particular language with little refer-
ence to notions that are employed in describing other languages. They were “almost
deliberately isolationist” (from Bernard Comrie’s editorial statement of the Lingua De-
scriptive Series), since the descriptive framework and terminology were often developed
for an individual language. This made typological comparability a serious issue.
Finally, there has been a long-standing debate as to which organization is preferable
for reference grammars: form-based/semasiological/analytic or function-based/onomasi-
ological/synthetic (Lehmann 1989; Evans and Dench 2006: 15; Cristofaro 2006: 137;
Mosel 2006). The form-based grammars take as their starting point the existing structures
of the language, that is, they select constructions and describe the range of functions
associated with them. The function-based grammars are organized around particular
meaning categories or functional domains such as, for example, nominal modification,
attribution, reference, modality, negation, questions etc., and show how the language
expresses them. Early grammars usually belong to the first type. As noticed in Evans
and Dench (2006: 15), this is because the techniques of structural linguistics have always
been more suitable for dealing with form than meaning. In fact, they often ignore seman-
tics, usage and communicative function altogether, to the extent that Payne (2006) refers
to structuralist and early transformational descriptions by the “grammar-as-machine”
metaphor. The information about each particular structure is mostly distributional, so a
grammar looks like a taxonomy of forms provided with labels that are sometimes diffi-
cult to interpret.
This led to radical changes in the approach to grammar writing.
3. The descriptive framework of Basic Linguistic Theory

The expression “Basic Linguistic Theory” refers to the theoretical framework that is
widely employed in language description, particularly grammatical descriptions of the
entire language, and is an example of fruitful interaction between theoretical and descrip-
tive linguistics. The same framework is referred to as “general comparative language”
in Lehmann (1989), but I will use the former term as it is more widely accepted. The
expression itself originates from Dixon (1997: 132), who defines Basic Linguistic Theory
as “the fundamental theoretical apparatus that underlies all work in describing languages
and formulating universals about the nature of human language”. Most reference gram-
mars written in the past 25 years or so adopt Basic Linguistic Theory as their theoretical
tool, even though not all of them explicitly mention it.
3.1. Basic Linguistic Theory as a theoretical tool
The status of Basic Linguistic Theory as a theoretical framework is not always recog-
nized. Many grammars explicitly state that the description they provide is atheoretical,
theoretically eclectic or theory-neutral. For instance, the author of the grammar of Wol-
ane says: “The presentation of the data is not based on a single linguistic model or theory
but is deliberately descriptive” (Meyer 2006: 21). Evans writes about his Kayardild
grammar: “The grammar deliberately eschews theory-specific assumptions and formal-
ism” (Evans 1995: ix). Foley (1991: vii) comments that his grammar of Yimas “is not
written in any set theoretical framework. (…) I have deliberately chosen to be eclectic,
choosing various ideas from different theories when these seem to elucidate the structure
of the language best”. Crowley (1998: 5) states that “the theoretical approach has been
deliberately eclectic in order to maximize ineligibility”. In this grammar constituents
order is dealt with using the notions of slots and fillers, although the approach is not
really tagmemic, and movement rules are also mentioned although the approach is not
entirely transformational.
However, Dryer (2006) refutes the myth that people who write grammars work with-
out a theory and emphasises that there is no such thing as atheoretical or theory-neutral
description. According to Gil (2001: 126), it is an illusion to believe that description can
be separated from theory and to engage in the former without the latter. One cannot
describe anything without making at least some theoretical assumptions and analytical
decisions. The bare facts of the language are infinite in number and do not present
themselves in a systematic way to an observer. It is the decision of the analyst to choose
which facts should be presented in a finite description, how they should be classified
and labelled, and which generalizations can be made on this basis. This cannot be done
without a theory. Therefore any presentation of linguistic data in a reference grammar
involves an analytical procedure and every label in a grammatical description is a theo-
retical statement.
Dryer further makes a rare distinction between “descriptive theory” and “explanatory
theory”. This distinction is not widely recognized because mainstream linguistics main-
tains that one and the same theory is suitable for both purposes and that the central task
of linguistics is explanation for linguistic facts. According to Dryer, this is the main
reason why mainstream linguistics fails to recognize Basic Linguistic Theory as theoreti-
cally relevant. Dryer rejects this view and calls for the recognition that description re-
quires a different theory which does not aim to provide an explanation of why languages
are the way they are. The extent to which descriptive work shares the basic assumptions
is actually rather striking and for Dryer this reflects the common theoretical background.
In other words, the relevant question is not whether reference grammars use a theory at
all, but what theory they use and how it interacts with other theoretical frameworks (cf.
Rice 2006a: 235).
3.2. Sources
Basic Linguistic Theory can be seen as having evolved out of so-called traditional gram-
mar, which goes back to the Graeco-Latin grammatical tradition, acquiring most of its
basic notions such as word classes, inflectional categories, and non-finite forms. The use
of terminology taken from traditional grammar has become increasingly popular in refer-
ence grammars, starting from the 1980s. In the words of Mosel (2006: 51), “even those
who are convinced that these categories do not exist in the language they describe have
difficulties doing without the traditional terms”.
In Dixon’s view, Basic Linguistic Theory has something of a timeless character, exist-
ing more or less unchanged since the ancient Greeks and Romans (Dixon 1997: 128−
130). It is conservative as a matter of principle. However, even though Basic Linguistic
Theory is grounded in traditional grammar, it has acquired ideas and terms from other
sources too. Unlike many other linguistic theories, it is a cumulative framework. Dryer
(2006) describes Basic Linguistic Theory as “traditional grammar, minus its bad features
(such as a tendency to describe all languages in terms of concepts motivated for Euro-
pean languages), plus necessary concepts absent from traditional grammar”. This means
that Basic Linguistic Theory is constantly updated by linguistic typology and theoreti-
cal linguistics.
First, Basic Linguistic Theory has taken some analytical techniques from the structur-
alist tradition, particularly in the areas of phonology and morphology. In contrast to
traditional grammar and many recent theoretical frameworks, it emphasises the structur-
alism-based need to describe each language in its own terms, instead of imposing on
individual languages concepts whose primary motivation comes from other (mostly Eu-
ropean) languages, as will be explained in more detail in Section 3.3. However, it con-
trasts with structuralist work in attempting to describe languages in a more user-friendly
fashion, including semantic considerations in the analyses, and employing terminology
that has been used for similar phenomena in other languages.
Second, Basic Linguistic Theory has been influenced to a certain extent by the gener-
ative-transformational paradigm, though this influence is often indirect. This mostly con-
cerns the earlier versions of the theory, while most recent work, especially the Minimalist
Programme, has had essentially no impact on Basic Linguistic Theory so far. Early
generative grammar examined many aspects of the syntax of English in great detail, and
the insights of that research have affected how Basic Linguistic Theory was applied to
the syntax of other languages. In fact, Rice (2006a: 239) attributes the increased role of
syntax in language description mostly to the influence of the generative paradigm, which
raised awareness of many linguistic phenomena not previously considered interesting.

Descriptive work has also borrowed some generative terminology. For example, the term
“complementizer” and the respective concept, unknown in traditional grammar, are now
used in some reference grammars (e.g. Heath 1999). Some recent grammars employ the
notion of KP instead of NP. For instance, Donohue (1999) argues for a hierarchical
structure of nominal phrases in Turkang Besi, with KP being higher than NP, and introdu-
ces the rule KP → ART NP. An NP is generated inside a KP since all NPs must appear
either with an article or a preposition, sometimes both.
Most importantly, the influence of the generative paradigm can be seen in what syn-
tactic constructions are identified and how they are analyzed. The phenomena that are
addressed in virtually every grammar written after 1980 are topic and focus construc-
tions, complement clauses, relative clauses, wh-questions and anaphora. Mosel (2006:
52) noticed that the Lingua Descriptive Series questionnaire first published in 1977
reflects the interest of the generative syntax of its time: it contains 79 questions on
reflexives (and only five on negation). However, it should be mentioned that variations
in constituent order, which have been central to syntactic analysis within the transforma-
tional paradigm, are still often described in a rather sketchy manner, and information on
syntactic constituency is not easily retrievable from descriptions completed using this
questionnaire.
Rice (2006a: 236, 2006b: 403) argues that formal syntactic theory forces a grammar
writer to ask questions that are not very likely to be asked otherwise. In her description
of wh-questions in Slave (Rice 1989) she had to address the following topics: whether
a sentence-initial wh-word leaves a gap, whether all “moved” wh-words follow the same
pattern, whether a question word behaves in the same way as topicalized NPs, and
whether there are locality constraints on wh-movement. These questions were inspired
by the development of the syntactic theory of the time, being largely based on the
insights of Chomsky (1977), and raised the issue of how Slave fits into the proposed
typology of questions.
Similarly, Evans (Evans and Dench 2006: 4) explains that he had to address certain
aspects of polysynthesis of Bininj Gun-wok predicted by Baker’s movement-based
theory of incorporation (Baker 1988, 1995). This resulted in a more detailed description
of the language than would have been written otherwise. The reference grammar (Evans
2003) argues that Bininj Gun-wok data suggest an alternative lexicalist view of incorpo-
ration, much in line with Rosen (1987). One of the arguments for this alternative is that
the language allows the so-called “doubling”, i.e. the repetition of the nominal root inside
and outside the incorporating word, see (1). In this example and all other examples cited
in this chapter the transcription comes from the original source; glosses are simplified.
(1) djaying kun-murrng birri-murrng-moyhme-y [Bininj Gun-wok]

is.said IV-bone 3bone-get-PST.PRF
‘They reckon they got those bones.’
(Evans 2003: 453)
This fact is predicted by the lexicalist analysis of “classifier” incorporation but is prob-
lematic for the movement analysis. In addition, a Baker-style account based on phrase-
structure sisterhood in D-structure predicts that intransitive subjects are incorporated
only in unaccusatives, but in Bininj Gun-wok typical unergative verbs such as ‘crawl’
or ‘get up’ can incorporate their subjects. There are other arguments as well, and Evans
concludes that movement analysis has no explanatory power for Bininj Gun-wok. The
important point here is that, although the theory did not guide the description of the
data, it raised the questions informing this description. Without the theory the description
would have been poorer because the grammarian might not have been able to see an
interesting aspect of language. So theory informs the grammarian about the topics worth
investigating and serves as a tool for the discovery of new data (cf. Evans 2007).
Finally and most importantly, Basic Linguistic Theory relies heavily on work in lin-
guistic typology. In fact, the primary influence on Basic Linguistic Theory in the past
20 years has come from typological work and the theory of language universals under-
stood as generalizations on observable cross-linguistic variation (Lehmann 1989; Dryer
2006; Cristofaro 2006). Descriptive linguistics has found the typological work especially
useful because Basic Linguistic Theory is also the framework assumed by typology, so
there is a considerable overlap in terminology between the two. For example, the gram-
mar of Supyire (Carlson 1994: 3) states that the description is completed within a func-
tional-typological framework, but the technical language it uses is not actually different
from the recommendations of Basic Linguistic Theory. Like Basic Linguistic Theory,
typology adopts a number of descriptive notions that to a large extent go back to tradi-
tional grammar, but it has also introduced new terms that are now widely used in descrip-
tive practice but less so in “formal” syntactic work. One of such notions is “converb”
defined by Nedjalkov (1995) as a non-finite verbal form used primarily for adverbial
subordination. This term is employed in a grammar of Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993), a
grammar of Udihe (Nikolaeva and Tolskaya 2001), a grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir
(Maslova 2003), a grammar of Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003), a grammar of Wolane (Meyer
2006), and a number of other descriptions.
The influence of typology also derives from the recognition of recurrent phenomena,
and Basic Linguistic Theory has incorporated many substantive concepts discussed in
the typological literature such as, for example, split intransitivity, head- vs. dependent-
marking, Accessibility Hierarchy, antipassive, internally-headed relative clauses, switch
reference, ergativity and morphological alignment. This led to the expansion of topics
addressed in reference grammars (cf. Cristofaro 2006: 138; Dryer 2006). Conversely, the
descriptive work on little known languages systematically forces typologists to ask new
questions about construction types.
Some suggestions on what information should be included in a syntactic description
are offered in Payne (1997), intended as a standard guide for field linguists “who desire
to write a description of the morphology and syntax of one of the many under-docu-
mented languages of the world” (Payne 1997: 1). The following syntactic topics are
considered crucial: grammatical categories and word classes, constituent order (some
notion of constituent structure, although it is sufficiently basic), the structure of noun
phrases (noun classes and classifiers, possession, modification, determination, quantifica-
tion), predicate nominals, case marking and grammatical relations, voice and valence-
changing operations, verb phrases (the structure of predicates, complex predicates and
serial verb constructions, verb phrase operations including nominalization), pragmati-
cally marked structures (topicalization, focalization, negation, non-declarative clause
types), and clause combining (subordination and coordination). These are the areas ad-
dressed in most recent grammars. One recent example is a grammar of Tariana (Aikhen-
vald 2003), which explicitly says that the theoretical framework used in the description
is Basic Linguistic Theory but the presentation of the facts is interwoven with their
analysis from the point of view of cross-linguistic comparison. The typological perspec-
tive is then crucial for the presentation of the data and the analysis of the language facts.
Typological considerations have also influenced the organization of reference gram-
mars. As mentioned above, earlier grammars preferred the form-to-function approach.
However, it is now generally recognized that function-to-form organization is more ap-
propriate for syntactic description, at least as far as the initial structuring of the material
is concerned (Noonan 2006: 359). Cristofaro (2006) argues that there are certain practical
considerations that may lead typologists to prefer the function-to-form approach. It is
preferable to organise the description around functional domains and independently of
actual forms of expression, because this will make it easy for typologists to conduct a
cross-linguistic investigation of how the relevant phenomenon is encoded across lan-
guages. The form-to-function approach may lead the user to miss pieces of information
that are actually there, but are located in parts of the grammar where they may not be
easily recoverable.
The assumption here is that there is a set of semantic categories instantiated in all
languages by various grammatical means. This presupposes a “catalogue” of functions
that are universally expressed, something that has never really been properly imple-
mented. As a result, there are few comprehensive meaning-based grammars, perhaps
also for the good reason that a reader should actually know that the forms and construc-
tions exist before (s)he can understand that a particular meaning can be expressed by
this form (Mosel 2006: 59). Some examples of functional or communicative grammars
written from the fundamentally meaning-based perspective and with clear emphasis on
usage of the described forms are Leech and Svartvik (1975) and Li and Thompson
(1981). However, Lehmann (1989) and Mosel (2006) observe that if the function-to-
form approach is implemented consistently, information about the same syntactic struc-
ture may be dispersed throughout the grammar and any potential polyfunctionality pat-
terns may remain unrecognized.
So the consistent preference for one approach over another produces a rather one-
sided result. In practice most modern grammars combine the two approaches, as recom-
mended in particular in Lehmann (1989). The macrostructure of the grammar is normally
determined by the usual guidelines for descriptive linguistics, but the description of each
functional domain has an internal microstructure determined by the categories of the
language in question. One example is Maslova (2003), where this point is explicitly
discussed. This is also true for the Lingua Descriptive Series questionnaire (Comrie and
Smith 1977). It exemplifies the so-called top-down or templetic approach to the organiza-
tion of grammar (the term is from Gil 2001: 126−127), where the author produces a
description according to a pre-prepared list of questions, so that the grammar writing
process consists in providing answers to these questions and mentioning both the absence
and the presence of the relevant feature. The questionnaire has a “descending” organiza-
tion syntax-morphology-phonology. Syntactic chapters are based on the following sub-
divisions: sentence types, subordinate clauses, the structure of syntactic phrases, the
operational definition of word classes, coordination, negation, anaphora, reflexives, re-
ciprocals, equatives, possession, emphasis, topicality, heavy shift and other “movement”
processes. The general direction of description is from function to form. However, this
principle is not totally consistent, as shown in Lehmann (1989) and Mosel (2006): some
parts of the description are organized based on structural criteria.
Generally speaking, both Basic Linguistic Theory and the functional-typological ap-
proach assume that a grammar is a form-meaning composite. The notion of grammatical
construction, i.e. idiomatic pairing of syntactic and semantico-pragmatic information,
has been widely used in reference grammars, even though the theoretical importance of
this notion had not been recognised until recently. Since certain aspects of language
structure can be explained in terms of meaning and usage, many grammarians are inter-
ested in the relation between structure and functional domains that are ultimately
grounded in human cognition and symbiosis (Lehmann 1989). A descriptive theory is
then a theory of how it is possible to express a particular meaning in a given language
(Dryer 2006; Evans and Dench 2006: 7). In this, it differs from many other syntactic
frameworks.
3.3. Terminology and representational conventions
Basic Linguistic Theory avoids theory-specific terminology. Or rather, it employs estab-

lished terminology that has entered various frameworks. This ensures the recognition of
recurrent cross-linguistic phenomena and easy compatibility with all syntactic models.
Only a few recent grammars use formalism of a particular syntactic framework. For
example, the grammar of Turkang Besi (Donohue 1999) employs tree-structure diagrams
representing syntactic constituency, some kind of LFG-style functional structures and the
thematic hierarchy formulated as in Bresnan and Kanerva (1989), but this is rather un-
usual. The only metalanguage employed in most reference grammars is natural language.
In fact, the absence of a technical metalanguage is an essential property of Basic Linguis-
tic Theory, which differs from many other theoretical frameworks in that it is informal.
However, Dryer (2006) warns against confusing the lack of formalism with imprecision.
A description in plain prose may be explicit and precise as long as the terminology
and assumptions are clearly defined. Many grammatical phenomena can generally be
characterized with sufficient precision in English (or some other natural language) with-
out the use of formalism.
One reason why complicated formalism is not recommended is that, in the view of
some descriptive linguists, the potential audience for a reference grammar is diverse and
does not only include professional linguists (Lehmann 1989; Mithun 2006; Evans and
Dench 2006: 6; Noonan 2006: 353; Mosel 2006: 45). If a description aims at the largest
possible audience, excessive technical terminology is detrimental. Academic grammars
may be consulted by a variety of users and serve diverse needs, including those of the
linguistic community. This is particularly true of smaller communities whose language
is severely endangered, for which a reference grammar can play an important role in
language maintenance. Moreover, the linguistic audience is changing and so are the
interests of theoretical linguistics and typology. Therefore a grammar of a little known
language should not be framed in terms of some formal model but presented using
representational conventions comprehensible across schools and times. Grammars writ-
ten in a natural language are the most enduring and accessible to the largest possible au-
dience.
The Mouton Grammar Library’s grammar of Basque (Hualde and Urbina 2003) is a
good example of a description informed by the insights and techniques of formal syntax,
but with an informal write-up. The grammar is written by a team of linguists trained in
the generative tradition of grammatical analysis. This ensures analytical rigor and atten-
tion to the fine points of syntactic structure, which are not always discussed in other
reference grammars. For example, it provides a thorough discussion of embedded ques-
tions, types of complementation, relativization of deeply embedded NPs, ellipsis and
gapping, multiple focus and multiple wh-questions. However the presentation avoids
unnecessary formalism. The book is accessible to any linguist regardless of theoretical
orientation.
Although Basic Linguistic Theory is heavily grounded in empirical data, it is not
merely a collection of facts from different languages but rather a systematization of
generalizations which follow from cross-linguistic variations. A certain level of abstrac-
tion is therefore a must. There are two conflicting pressures reflecting the well-known
tension between linguistic universality and linguistic diversity with respect to termi-
nology.
First, the authors of modern grammars prefer to employ fairly uniform terminology
as opposed to structuralism-based descriptions, which tried to capture the unique proper-
ties of every linguistic system with idiosyncratic terms. The description of an individual
language must crucially be tied to the knowledge of other languages and the way they
are described. It is important for a grammarian to know what terms are generally in use
and how they are commonly understood (Mithun 2006: 206). Inventing new terms for a
well-defined phenomenon is not desirable. Cristofaro (2006) argues that standardization
of terminology ensures greater typological adequacy and comparability, while the use of
idiosyncratic terms makes it more difficult for the reader to establish differences and
similarities between the language in question and other languages with the same phenom-
enon. What is more, reference grammars are not meant to be read from beginning to
end; they are used when the need arises (Lehmann 1989). A grammar that is organized
in an idiosyncratic way may not be easily accessible even if the description itself is
sufficiently comprehensive, because it may simply be difficult to find relevant informa-
tion and compare it with information drawn from descriptions of other languages. If the
grammar does not allow easy identification of the information, the reader may not realise
where exactly it is addressed.
Generally speaking, grammars display an overwhelming tendency to use the same
terminology. However, some grammars use invented terms to describe categories that
are similar to categories of other languages and could be described with traditional labels
familiar to most linguists. In his description of Tundra Nenets inflection, Salminen
(1997) uses a number of highly idiosyncratic names for verbal moods, as well as the
term “referentials”, which simply denotes agreeing adverbs. Cristofaro (2006: 159–60)
discusses several other examples. For instance, she finds unnecessary the label “logical
clause” employed in Morse and Maxwell (1999). This type encompasses purpose, cause,
conditional, comparison and concession clauses. A new term can be introduced if it
refers to a genuinely novel phenomenon, but in this case it should be carefully defined
(Noonan 2006: 354). Thus, Dol (1999) employs the term “pseudo-quotative” in her
description of Maybrat and takes an effort to explain that pseudo-quotatives, unlike
regular quotatives, which express indirect speech, reflect the thought content and differ
from the latter in their syntactic structure.
Second, a number of typologists have recently argued for the view that linguistic
categories identified in terms of particular structural features may not be cross-linguisti-
cally robust (Dryer 1997; Croft 2001; Gil 2001). To put it differently, cross-linguistic
notions are convenient abstractions which ensure comparability but they are not universal
in terms of their actual content. If individual categories are language-specific in this
sense, it is essential to provide a detailed discussion of the set of criteria used to identify
them. This is now the common practice in descriptive grammars, which normally offer
a detailed discussion of the grammatical criteria they apply for defining categories. A
careful description of the facts then becomes a more important requirement than the
choice of labels (Noonan 2006: 358).
Grammars usually say what tests they use for identifying subjects and objects. For
example, Nikolaeva and Tolskaya (2001: 533−546) discuss the following subject proper-
ties in Udihe: nominative case, verbal agreement, control of switch reference, infinitival
clauses, reflexivization and secondary predicates, as well as coreferential deletion in the
conjoined clause. In Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 308−310) relevant subject tests in-
clude verbal agreement, the choice of relativization strategy, backwards control of anaph-
ora in complementation structures and reflexives. This cluster of properties is fairly
typical, but not necessarily uniform for all languages. In fact even in Udihe some of the
relevant properties are shared by non-nominative elements referred to in the grammar as
“subjectoids”. These include experiencer datives and accusative causee arguments in
causative constructions. Similarly, in Newar no other syntactic units exhibit exactly the
same cluster of properties as the subject, but two subject properties, the ability to serve
as antecedents of reflexives and the choice of the relativization strategy, are shared by
experiencer datives. So the choice of parameters is an empirical matter, but the know-
ledge of phenomena that may be relevant to a particular category, based on previous
descriptions of other languages or general typological observations, may help deciding
what parameters one should focus on when collecting data.
More radically, Gil (2001) and La Polla and Poa (2006) state that there are no univer-
sal categories of grammatical relations instantiated in all languages. Each language is a
unique set of grammatical conventions which cannot be reduced to several universal
categories, even if some aspects are similar across languages. Many of the criteria tradi-
tionally taken as distinctive for subjects identify different argument roles in different
languages. For example, Foley (1991: 195−200) shows that in Yimas establishing gram-
matical relations is not straightforward, because different person/number combinations
of the core arguments align grammatical relations in different ways.
Similar ideas have been advanced with respect to word classes. Croft (2001) and
Cristofaro (2006: 138−140) argue that grammatical classes should be postulated for each
language independently of the categories postulated for other languages. Payne
(2006: 373) refers to universal word classes as convenient approximations that help
readers to understand something important about the language but do not necessarily
correspond to fixed categories even within one language, let alone cross-linguistically.
They are defined in terms of grammatical properties, but we often have a continuum
rather than a clear-cut distinction between neighbouring categories, because each sub-
class possesses a distinct cluster of (partially overlapping) characteristics. For example,
in Kayardild (Evans 1995) parts of speech cannot always be unambiguously established
based on clear-cut distributional criteria. Evans suggests that morphological, syntactic
and semantic properties should equally be taken into consideration, even though they do
not always converge. In other words, we might find instances of mismatch between
various parameters. This conclusion is very much in line with recent lexicalist proposals
that categoriality does not rely on one single definitional feature but may be sensitive to
different cross-cutting kinds of information, so that “lexical class” means more than just
“distributional class” (e.g. Malouf 2000; Spencer 2005).
Generally speaking, although Basic Linguistic Theory makes extensive use of univer-
sal linguistic categories understood as typological generalizations, it emphasises the need
to approach each analytical decision “as an open question” (Dixon 1997: 132). This
ensures the correct balance between the universalist and relativist position in language
description. Cross-linguistic variation in the content of relevant categories is systemati-
cally expressed, but an adequate level of comparability is ensured.
3.4. Data collection
The issue of elicited as opposed to naturalistic data has been an object of long-standing
debate among fieldworkers. According to one widespread view, grammars should only
be based on naturally attested patterns of speech. This is the general recommendation in
Payne and Weber (2006), who advise elicitation only for obtaining data for controlled
systematic aspects of language such as, for example, morphophonemics or inventories
of inflectional and derivational forms. The data for a syntactic description (e.g. constitu-
ent order, sentence particles, clause combining, voice, alignment, and pragmatically
marked structures such as topicalization) should be extracted out of a large body of
naturally occurring texts and may be supplemented by elicitation, if necessary.
In a number of instances grammars explicitly state that they only rely on the materials
obtained from spontaneous discourse. This choice sometimes reflects the conscious deci-
sion of the author to follow the so-called “usage-based” approach to language with its
emphasis on the intimate relation between linguistic structures and linguistic events, that
is, language use (e.g. Barlow and Kemmer 2000). In the usage-based models the function
of language as a tool of communication is the central motivation for observed grammati-
cal patterns. They are deeply grounded in ongoing human interaction, and grammatical
knowledge is built up inductively from usage events and does not exist outside them.
Since linguistic structures are so closely tied to usage, both theoretical analysis and
language description should be based on observations of language data drawn from
natural discourse (corpus data), rather than examples constructed by a linguist. The usual
procedure is to record naturally occurring texts (conversations and narratives), transcribe
them and classify utterances and their parts according to linguistic meta-notions drawn
from the vocabulary of Basic Linguistic Theory such as, for example, “relative clauses”,
“possessive constructions”, and so on.
The emphasis on naturally occurring examples of speech also reflects the growing
interest in language documentation, which is nowadays understood as collection and
presentation of primary linguistic data (Himmelman 1998). Technically speaking, refer-
ence grammars do not belong to the realm of language documentation, as they do not
present primary data for their own sake but only to the extent they illustrate a particular
grammatical point. However, many grammar writers view their work as a documentary
enterprise and therefore aim to present examples obtained from spontaneous discourse.
For example, a grammar of Nunggubuyu (Heath 1984) and a grammar of Wolane (Meyer
2006) emphasize that they are based exclusively on corpus data.
This point is important here because it can influence the presentation of syntax. Evans
and Dench (2006: 11) suggest that grammars that only use corpus data are likely to
overlook that speakers might have clear judgements on complex constructions which
rarely if ever occur in textual corpora. No corpus, however large, contains information
about all the areas of grammar a linguist might want to explore, and the corpora of little
described languages are usually not even very large. Moreover, the method of data col-
lection can affect an analytical decision. On the one hand, elicited data may drastically
differ from natural data in terms of word order, which in some cases can lead to radically
different analyses of word class systems (see Gil 2001 for an example). On the other
hand, the usage-based approach may be insufficient for syntactic argumentation and can
lead to questionable solutions.
One example of the latter was discussed in Nikolaeva’s (2005) review of the grammar
of Kolyma Yukaghir (Maslova 2003). The grammar states that clause-chaining construc-
tions, which involve non-finite verbs and are employed both to conjoin clauses and to
modify the proposition rendered by the finite clause, are structurally ambiguous (Mas-
lova 2003: 379−380). The author concludes, much in line with Longacre (1985), that
Yukaghir has no strict formal opposition between coordination and subordination. This
analysis a priori excludes the possibility that the ambiguity of chains is only apparent
and there is an underlying structural difference in how their syntactic relation with the
finite clause is construed, even though it is not accompanied by any overt morphological
or word order distinctions. According to Maslova (2003: 380), the structural ambiguity
is “an essential property of this strategy of clause linking (rather than an artefact of
inadequate tools of syntactic analysis)”. However, this conclusion can only be justified
if a thorough syntactic analysis is provided. Coordinated and subordinated structures are
known to exhibit different properties with respect to anaphoric binding, gapping, extrac-
tions, and scope of quantifiers (van Oirsouw 1987; Goodall 1987; Haspelmath 1995;
Johannessen 1998, and others). These tests are not discussed in the grammar. A possible
reason is that such data are difficult to obtain from texts. The grammar mostly uses
corpus data, which are only rarely supplemented by elicited examples. However, in the
absence of this discussion, the conclusion about ambiguity between coordination and
subordination seems premature.
The same problem arises with the grammar of Wolane (Meyer 2006), also based on
corpus data. Converbial structures represent clause types that reportedly stand between
subordinate and main clauses (so called co-subordination). Syntactic argumentation for
this conclusion is not provided and it is not obvious from the suggested translations.
As emphasized in Rice (2006a: 238), information received through elicitation forms
a vital part of language and often cannot be obtained otherwise. It therefore deserves to
be included in a reference grammar. Rice calls for a balanced approach using both types
of data and this is what normally happens in the practice of grammar writing. Most
modern grammars are based on a mixture of data obtained from naturally occurring
discourse and elicited data, for example, a grammar of Mybrat (Dol 1999), a grammar
of Mosetén (Sakel 2004), and a grammar of Urarina (Olawsky 2006). Typically the
authors use elicitation as a supplementary method. For instance, Donohue (1999: 13)
mentions that he started eliciting examples of double applicatives in Turkang Besi only
after they were observed in spontaneous texts.
4. Case studies
In this section I present a brief overview of how syntactic topics are addressed in refer-
ence grammars concentrating, in particular, on relative clauses and differential object
marking. I will identify a few specific questions which were raised in these areas by
theoretical linguists and which, I feel, deserve more attention in the descriptive literature.
4.1. Relative clauses
Relative clauses exhibit remarkable structural diversity across languages and have played
a prominent role in linguistic typology and theoretical syntax. They are addressed in the
overwhelming majority of reference grammars since all or most languages exhibit some
kind of relativization. Surprising exceptions are a few recent grammars that have ap-
peared in the series Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region. Although the descrip-
tions are meant to be comprehensive, they generally deal with morphology and provide
rather limited information on syntax. Relative clauses are not mentioned in the grammar
of Lepcha (Plaisier 2007) and the grammar of Sunwar (Borchers 2008). In the grammar
of Kulung (Tolsma 2006) attributive participial constructions are briefly discussed but
their clausal status remains unclear. The grammar of Urarina (Olawsky 2006: 320−328)
states that relativization is expressed by nominalizations, which do not constitute inde-
pendent clauses. This solution seems to be based on the fact that nominalized construc-
tions are non-finite and do not contain morphological expression of tense and aspect.
Syntactic arguments for their non-clausal status are not actually provided. The author
does not discuss the behavioural properties of the dependent subject, whether or not
relative constructions have independent time reference, conditions on extractions, island
constraints etc.
The cross-linguistic taxonomy of relative clauses is based upon three commonly ac-
cepted diagnostic criteria. First, they are classified according to the syntactic relationship
between the clause and its semantic head (embedded vs. adjoined; the postnominal vs.
prenominal position of the embedded clause). The second common criterion concerns
the so-called “grammatical function recoverability strategy”, i.e. the indication of the
position of the modified noun in the relative clause (non-reduction, pronoun retention,
relative pronouns, and gapping). The third parameter of classification is related to the
syntactic status of the relativized noun within the relative clause.
While the first two parameters tend to be systematically addressed in reference gram-
mars as they concern the basics of the relative clause structure, the third parameter is
not always discussed at sufficient length. It is well known since Keenan and Comrie
(1977) that grammatical functions have different accessibility to relativization and that
if a language has several relativization strategies their distribution is not random. This
generalization is expressed in the famous Accessibility Hierarchy, where the sign
“>”means ‘is more accessible to relativization’.
(2) subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique argument > possessor >
object of comparison
The claim is that each relativization strategy covers a continuous segment on the hier-
archy and accessibility to relativization is progressively higher on its left periphery. If a
language can relativize a given position on the hierarchy, then it can relativize all posi-
tions to the left.
The problem is that it is sometimes difficult to extract information on accessibility to
relativization from reference grammars because they do not describe the relativization
of all grammatical functions. Some examples of grammars that do include this informa-
tion are a grammar of Tzutujil (Dayley 1985), a grammar of Muna (van den Berg 1989),
a grammar of Mosetén (Sakel 2004), and a grammar of Lao (Enfield 2007). Many other
grammars provide explicit information only on the relativization of the grammatical
functions located high on the hierarchy, that is, the subject and the direct object, and do
not mention whether relativization of lower functions such as adjuncts, possessors or
objects of comparison is possible. This fact is rather surprising, given that the Accessibil-
ity Hierarchy is commonly referred to in typology. Cristofaro (2006) attributes this lack
to the method of data collection: as mentioned in Section 3.4, some grammars are pri-
marily based on corpus data and constructions relativizing lower functions are relatively
infrequent in natural discourse. Textual data may provide no information on the relevant
phenomenon and must be supplemented by elicitation.
One example is the grammar of Mam (England 1983), which cites examples of the
relativization of subjects and direct objects, but does not explicitly state whether other
grammatical functions can be relativized. The grammar of Tepehuan (Willett 1991: 234−
237) describes in detail the structural differences between restrictive and non-restrictive
relatives, but does not address any grammatical constraints on relativization. The gram-
mar of Cubeo (Morse and Maxwell 1999) only mentions relativization of subjects, ob-
jects and locative adjuncts. The grammar of Wolane (Meyer 2006) discusses relativiza-
tion of subjects, objects and some adjuncts, but in the latter case the applicative marker
is required on the verb, so we are likely to be dealing with transitivization (this analysis
is not explicitly suggested). There is no information of relativization of other functions.
In Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007) subjects, objects, locatives and time adjuncts are rela-
tivized, but no information is provided on possessors, objects of comparison, objects
of postpositions and other lower functions. Possessor relativization is especially rarely
discussed, and so is relativization out of complex constructions. Apart from the grammar
of Basque mentioned above, it is only addressed in some detail in the grammar of Koyra
Chiini (Heath 1999: 199−201).
The semantics of relative clauses is another issue. Restrictive relative clauses are
known to be cross-linguistically more common than non-restrictive ones: there are no
languages with only non-restrictive relatives, but the reverse is not true. For instance,
according to Noonan (1992) relative clauses in Lango are always restrictive, whereas
non-restrictive relatives do not seem to have a grammaticalized counterpart. The same
is observed in Supyire (Carlson 1994: 487), where non-restrictive meanings are rendered
by mere parataxis. However, grammars do not always provide information on whether
non-restrictive clauses are available. The examples cited in most grammars illustrate
restrictive relatives. For example, non-restrictive relatives are not mentioned in the other-
wise very detailed description of Mina relative clauses (Frayzyngier and Johnston 2005)
or in the grammar of Boumaa Fijian (Dixon 1988).
The variety of structural and semantic types of relative clauses raises the question of
whether there is such a notion as a universal relative construction and if so, what are its
properties. There are two competing approaches to the analysis of relative clauses in the
theoretical literature on syntax, which differ according to their view on where in the
structure the modified nominal originates and what its syntactic relation is to the relative
clause. In the more standard account, the relative clause is adjoined to the higher projec-
tion of the modified nominal. The head of the relative is base-generated outside the
relative clause and may be linked to the clause-internal relative phrase through some
kind of interpretive mechanism. Under the alternative approach developed in Kayne
(1994), the relative clause is a syntactic complement of the determiner head rather than
an adjunct. Given the binary branching hypothesis, the modified noun cannot function
as the complement of the determiner. Kayne proposes that it is generated internally to
the relative clause from where it raises to the specifier of the respective CP.
As was argued by Cinque (2007), cross-linguistic data provided by reference gram-
mars of little studied languages are of primary importance for deciding between these
alternatives. Some authors (Carlson 1977; Grosu 1994; Grosu and Landman 1998, and
others) distinguish the third semantic type of relative clause, in addition to restrictive
and non-restrictive relatives, and amount or degree relatives, exemplified in (3).
(3) We will never be able to recruit the soldiers [that the Chinese paraded last May].
The relative clause in (3) is said to contain a phonetically null element designating a
quantity or amount, so that the clause can be paraphrased as as many soldiers as the
Chinese paraded last May. Degree relatives differ from restrictive relatives in a number
of syntactic ways. In English they show determiners restrictions (they are only combined
with strong determiners such as definite articles and universal quantifiers), do not admit
wh-pronouns, do not allow extraposition, and have different stacking properties. Cru-
cially, degree relatives normally require a raising analysis by which the head is inter-
preted inside the relative clause, but it is more questionable whether restrictive relatives
are subject to raising or matching analysis of both. A typologically-interesting question
then is whether all languages have degree relatives as opposed to restrictive relatives.
However, at the time of writing I do not know of any reference grammar where degree
relatives are addressed.
Another typological question which is of relevance for theoretical syntax is the struc-
ture of head-internal relatives, namely, whether or not they show indefinite restrictions
on internal head and concomitant syntactic effects such as sensitivity to island constraints
(Cinque 2007: 102). Again, information on this is never found in reference grammars,
even if the language does have head-internal relatives. Cinque concludes that providing
relevant information in grammars will bear on the theoretical analysis of relative clauses.
Conversely, attention to the findings of formal approaches to syntax may help strengthen
the results of typology and grammar writing. Basic Linguistic Theory would greatly
improve its syntactic sophistication if it were to follow the results of studies in formal
syntax and semantics as closely as it adopts the results of the functional-typological
approach to language.
4.2. Differential object marking

Many languages exhibit non-uniform marking targeting objects. Variations can occur
within one and the same language with objects of one and the same verb. Such patterns
are widely known as differential object marking or DOM (a term introduced by Bossong
1985), and are extensively discussed in Bossong (1991), Næss (2004), and de Swart
(2007), Dalrylpe and Nikolaeva (2011) among many others. Work by Aissen (2003) has
been particularly influential in the typologically orientated research. DOM can involve
both differential object agreement and differential case marking, if case marking is un-
derstood broadly as any type of dependent-marking (case or adpositions). It is known to
be a very robust cross-linguistic phenomenon having been described in greater or lesser
detail in the grammars of many languages such as, for example, Mandarin Chinese (Li
and Thompson 1981), Palauan (Josephs 1975), Sinhala (Gair and Paolillo 1997), Kash-
miri (Wali and Koul 1996), and Meithei (Chelliah 1997).
However, the presentation of the phenomenon often avoids the discussion of syntactic
issues. The syntax of DOM has been addressed within the transformational paradigm,
where it is generally taken to be related to the phenomenon of object shift. Many recent
analyses of the phrasal syntax assume two distinct positions for two types of objects,
VP-internal and VP-external, and postulate a correlation between the position and the
grammatical marking (Diesing 1992; Ritter and Rosen 2001; Woolford 1999, 2000,
among many others). It is generally assumed that VP-internal objects are syntactically
less “visible” than VP-external ones, but the cross-linguistic behaviour of objects in
languages with DOM needs more investigation. Unfortunately, grammars do not normally
address the position of the marked and the unmarked objects. Similarly their behavioural
properties are rarely discussed, although it has been observed that in some languages
they exhibit different behavioural profiles (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 2011). Existing
descriptions mostly concentrate on the distribution of morphological marking and its
functional motivation.
For example, in Turkish the object stands in the nominative if it is non-specific or
generic, otherwise it must be marked by the accusative case (Kornfilt 1997: 219−220).
However, the grammar does not discuss object properties and object position, even
though it is known from other work that unmarked objects must be immediately adjacent
to the verb while the accusative objects need not (Erguvanli 1984; King and Butt 1996).
In the grammar of Udihe (Nikolaeva and Tolskaya 2001) DOM is addressed in the chapter
on morphology, where different factors triggering the optional accusative are described.
The syntax of this phenomenon remains unclear. It is unknown whether the marked and
unmarked objects have identical properties, if they are located in the same position and
bear the same grammatical function.
One interesting exception is Genetti’s description of Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007),
which provides an extensive discussion of object properties. In this language objects are
either unmarked (in the absolutive case) or marked with the dative -ta. Many languages
are known to grammatically distinguish between two classes of objects, either direct
objects (patient/theme) vs. indirect objects (recipient), or primary objects (patient/theme
of monotransitive verbs and recipient) vs. secondary objects (patient/theme of ditransi-
tive verbs) (Dryer 1986). However, Genetti argues that neither analysis is suitable for
Newar. Both types of objects in ditransitive constructions can take the dative case under
the appropriate discourse conditions (see example [4]), are the only grammatical argu-
ments that have been found to antecedent the emphatic possessive pronouns āme tuŋ
‘his/her own’, and have identical relativization potential.
(4) āle āmta bhānche-ta bir-ju [Dolakha Newar]

then she.DAT cook-DAT give-3SG.PST
‘Then he gave her (in marriage) to the cook.’
(Genetti 2007: 316)
Genetti concludes that in Newar all object-like arguments appear to be expressed by a

single undifferentiated category of object, which differs from subjects and other gram-
matical functions in a number of properties. This conclusion may seem rather surprising
from the perspective of a theory such as LFG, where grammatical functions are assumed
to be unique within a single functional structure; that is, doubling of the same function
is impossible within the boundaries of a simple clause. Note also that the conditions on
case marking differ for the two types of objects. Recipient objects are always marked
with the dative, whereas for patient/theme objects the dative is optional and seems to
depend on a number of discourse conditions: the patient/them object is marked if its
referent is either human and given in the discourse, or animate (non-human) and occurs
in an utterance that is “crucial to the resolution of a narrative plot” (Genetti 2007: 113).
For example, one story tells how a son bets with his friends and carefully prepares a
trick he will use. The trick, the culmination of his plan, begins with the release of a calf
and is described by the sentence ‘Then the son suddenly released the calf’, where the
object ‘calf’ stands in the dative. This distinction suggests that we may be dealing with
different grammatical functions after all, which appear to behave identically with respect
to the tests discussed in the grammar. In any case the grammar offers a genuinely
thought-provoking discussion.
This also brings us to the question of how the differential marking of objects is
motivated. Most previous work on DOM has appealed to referential features of the object,
such as animacy, definiteness or specificity, to distinguish marked and unmarked objects.
Typologists have demonstrated convincingly that these features, as an inherent part of
the semantics of the object NP, often play a role in DOM. For instance, the recent influen-
tial proposal by Aissen (2003) is based on the hierarchies of animacy and definiteness.
Most transformational work on DOM relies on the premise that object shift and object
marking patterns are semantically driven. It is generally assumed that indefinite/nonspe-
cific objects are VP-internal and definite/specific ones are VP-external (Diesing 1992,
and others). For example, work by Woolford (1999, 2000) proposes a family of Exclu-
sion Principles which are based on specificity, humanness, animacy, and number. Ritter
and Rosen (2001) use a general notion of boundedness which encompasses specificity
and definiteness as well as event-boundedness.
These criteria are indeed useful in explaining patterns of DOM in the languages where
objects that are characterized as semantically “strong” or “definite” show more agree-
ment with the verb or more casemarking than objects without these properties. Semantic
factors seem to be sufficient for explaining patterns of DOM in Turkish, where the distri-
bution of marked and unmarked objects is fairly straightforward and has to do with
specificity. Yet these factors do not directly account for languages in which objects with
the same referential features can be either unmarked or marked. As mentioned above, in
Dolakha Newar the dative marking on the patient/theme object is only required if the
object is characterized by some degree of discourse saliency in addition to being animate.

In Sinhala (Gair and Paolillo 1997) the accusative marking is only possible on animate
objects, but animate objects are sometimes marked and sometimes unmarked. There is
no explanation of this pattern in the grammar.
(5) mamə miniha(-wə) dækka [Sinhala]

I man-ACC see.PST
‘I saw the man.’
(Gair and Paolillo 1997: 32)
There are different views on the object marker -ra in Persian. Mahootian (1997) argues
that it has more than one function, but its primary role is to mark definiteness. A much
more detailed discussion is provided in Lazard (1992: 183−194), where object marking
is said to depend on a number of complex semantic, pragmatic and grammatical condi-
tions. The basic idea is that the entity denoted by the marked object must be individual-
ized: the more it is individual, the more likely the object is to be marked. This makes
object marking available on indefinite nouns if they designate a clearly individuated
entity (EZ = ezafe):
(6) dâlân-e derâz-e târik-i-râ peymud [Persian]

long-EZ dark-EZ corridor-INDF-OBJ run.down.PST
‘He ran down a long dark corridor.’
(Lazard 1992: 185)
Non-specific objects never take -ra, but it remains unclear whether it is required for all
specific objects and therefore is a specificity marker. Lazard’s discussion rather suggests
that it is not.
Seemingly unpredictable variations in DOM can sometimes be explained by reference
to information structure, a level of sentence grammar where propositions, as conceptual
states of affairs, are structured in accordance with the informational value of sentence
elements and contextual factors. As extensively argued in Darlymple and Nikoaleva
(2011) in many languages marked objects are topical, while unmarked objects are not.
This is the solution offered for DOM in Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003). Only topical objects
receive the marking -nuku/-naku, while non-topical objects remain unmarked if lexical
or marked with -na if pronominal. The topical object has to satisfy one of the following
conditions: (i) be the topic of the narrative; (ii) be referential, specific and/or definite;
(iii) be important for the speaker. It should be noted, however, that while the general
insight seems to be correct, the characterisation of topic provided in this grammar seems
imprecise. Topicality is usually understood as having to do with the construal of the
referent as pragmatically salient (Lambrecht 1994) and cannot be unambiguously estab-
lished based on the referential features. The relationship between topicality and the refer-
ential properties of the object in Tariana is not spelled out.
Another issue which the grammars do not always resolve is the pronominal status of
differential agreement markers. A number of languages, e.g. Lango (Noonan 1992),
exhibit incorporated object pronouns. Yet, in some languages the status of the object
marker on the verb is not entirely obvious. One grammar that addresses this question
albeit briefly is the grammar of Muna (van den Berg 1989). In this language a combina-
tion of the (pronominal) object marker and an overt lexical object is possible in SVO
type clauses, although the object marker is optional:
(7) do-fenamisi-e-mo ka-gharo-no taghi [Muna]

3PL-fell-3SG-PFV NMLZ-hungry-POSS belly
‘They felt their hungry bellies.’
(van den Berg 1989: 165)
In most cases the referent of the object is known and can be analyzed as an afterthought,
but this is not necessarily the case. According to van den Berg (1989: 165), “it is possible
that a system of object agreement is gradually coming into existence”. This seems to be
a reasonable conclusion but needs further investigation, for instance, along the lines
suggested in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987).
5. Conclusion
To sum up, the presentation of syntax in recent reference grammars has mostly been in
terms of Basic Linguistic Theory, a cumulative descriptive framework that has acquired
its methods and concepts from various sources, from traditional grammar to modern
theoretical syntax. The metalanguage it uses is rather informal, which has the advantage
of being user-friendly, as presumably every reader is able to access the language data
independently of his or her training and the theoretical framework in which (s)he is
working. Cross-linguistic comparability is ensured by the use of standard terminology
and analytical tools, although the idea that the actual content of the typologically relevant
phenomena/categories may differ is becoming increasingly popular among descriptive
linguists.
The ongoing research in linguistic theory and language typology does have a consid-
erable impact on Basic Linguistic Theory. Rice (2006a: 259) suggests that changes will
continue over time, although this is not necessarily a conscious enterprise. The role of
syntactic theory in language description mainly consists in defining what is considered
to be essential for the structure of the language and what questions a fieldworker can
ask, as well as in shaping the analysis. Grammar writing requires a good theoretical
background, the ability to recognize an analytical problem and to provide coherent and
cohesive argumentation. On the other hand, the data from reference grammars enrich
syntactic theory, as they can be used to evaluate possible constraints on human language
and extend our understanding of human linguistic capacity.
The linguists who work on “explanatory” theories, both “functionalists” and “formal-
ists”, do not always find answers to all the questions they wish to investigate in descrip-
tive grammars. This is understandable, since a grammar cannot address every topic in
equal descriptive depth. In his recent paper, Evans (2007) estimates that a theoretically
satisfying description of reciprocal constructions is likely to be at least 40 pages long.
Judging from the average proportion of pages devoted to reciprocals in existing reference
grammars, this means that we would need a grammar of about 9,000 pages. Creating a
grammar of this scale is hardly a realistic goal. Nonetheless grammars should aim at a
thorough exploration of each syntactic phenomenon, informed by recent advances in
theoretical syntax and syntactic typology.
Adelaar, Wilhelm
1977 Tarma Quechua: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2003 A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. (Cambridge grammatical descrip-
tions 3.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aissen, Judith
2003 Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 21: 435−483.
Allin, Trevor
1970 A Grammar of Resígaro. 3 vols. Horsley Green, High Wycombe: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Baker, Mark
1995 The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.)
2000 Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Borchers, Dörte
2008 A Grammar of Sunwar: Descriptive Grammar, Paradigms, Texts and Glossary. (Brill’s
Tibetan studies library. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region.) Leiden/Boston:
Brill.
Bossong, Georg
1985 Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den Neuiranis-
chen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Bossong, Georg
1991 Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In: Dieter Wanner, and Douglas
A. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 143−170. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Bresnan, Joan, and Sam Mchombo
1987 Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741−783.
Bresnan, Joan, and Jonni Kanerva
1989 Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: a study of factorization of grammar. Linguistic Inquiry
20: 1−50.
Butt, Miriam, and Tracy Holloway King
1996 Structural topic and focus without movement. In: Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Carlson, Greg
1977 Amount relatives. Language 53: 520−542.
Carlson, Robert
1994 A Grammar of Supyire. (Mouton grammar library 14.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cinque, Guglielmo
2007 A note on linguistic theory and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 93−106.
Chelliah, Shobhana Lakshmi
1997 A Grammar of Meithei. (Mouton Grammar Library 17.) New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam
1977 On WH-movement. In: Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian (eds.),
Formal Syntax, 71−132. New York: Academic Press.
Cloarec-Heiss, France
1986 Dynamique et équilibre d’une syntaxe: le banda-linda de Centrafrique. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press et Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme pour
Société d’études linguistiques et anthropologiques et France.
Comrie, Bernard, and Norval Smith
1977 Lingua Descriptive Studies: Questionnaire. Lingua 42: 1−72.
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cristofaro, Sonia
2006 The organization of reference grammars: A typologist user’s point of view. In: Felix K.
Ameka, Alan Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching Language: The
Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 137−170. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crowley, Terry
1998 An Erromangan (Sye) Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Dayley, Jon P.
1985 Tzutujil Grammar. (University of California publications in linguistics 7.) Berkeley;
London: University of California Press.
de Swart, Peter
2007 Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nij-
megen.
Dalrymple, Mary, and Irina Nikolaeva
2011 Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dez, Jacques
1980 Structures de la Langue Malgache: Éléments de Grammaire à l’usage des Franco-
phones. Paris: Publications orientalistes de France.
Diesing, Molly
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1988 A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1997 The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dol, Philomena
1999 A Grammar of Maybrat. (Pacific Linguistics 586.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University
Donohue, Mark
1999 A Grammar of Turkang Besi. (Mouton Grammar Library 20.) Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Driem, George van
1987 A Grammar of Limbu. (Mouton Grammar Library 4.) Berlin; New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Dryer, Matthew
1986 Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62: 808−845.
Dryer, Matthew
1997 Are grammatical relations universal? In: Joan Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra Thomp-
son (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type, 115−143. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Dryer, Matthew
2006 Descriptive theories, explanatory theories and Basic Linguistic Theory. In: Felix K.
Ameka, Alan Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching Language: The
Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 207−234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Enfield, Nick J.
2007 A Grammar of Lao. (Mouton Grammar Library 38.) New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
England, Nora C.
1983 A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Erguvanli, Ezer Emine
1984 The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. (University of California Publications
in Linguistics 106.) Berkley: University of California Press.
Evans, Nicholas
1995 A Grammar of Kayardild: with Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. (Mouton
Grammar Library 15.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, Nicholas
2003 Bininj Gun-wok: a Pan-dialectal Grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune (2 vols.).
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Evans, Nicholas
2007 Reciprocals, grammar writing, and typology. Romanian Society for Romance Linguistics
7: 479−506.
Evans, Nicholas, and Alan Dench
2006 Catching language. In: Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds.),
Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 1−39. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Foley, William
1991 The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Eric Johnston
2005 A Grammar of Muna. (Mouton Grammar Library 35.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gair, James W., and John C. Paolillo
1997 Sinhala. (Languages of the World Materials 34.) München: LINCOM Europa.
Genetti, Carol
2007 A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. (Mouton Grammar Library 40.) Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Gil, David
2001 Escaping Eurocentrism: Fieldwork as a process of unlearning. In: Paul Newman, and
Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic Fieldwork, 102−132. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Glass, Amee, and Dorothy Hackett
1970 Pitjantjatjara Grammar: a Tagmemic View of Ngaanyatjara (Warburton Ranges) Dia-
lect. (Linguistic Series 13. Australian Aboriginal Studies 34.) Canberra: Australian Insti-
tute of Aboriginal Studies.
Grosu, Alexander
1994 Three Studies in Locality and Case. London; New York: Routledge.
Grosu, Alexander, and Fred Landman
1998 Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125−170.
Johannessen, Janne
1998 Coordination. (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax.) New York: Oxford University
Press.
Josephs, Lewis
1975 Palauan Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Havaii Press.
Haiman, John
1980 Hua, a Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. (Studies of Lan-
guage Companion Series 5.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harrison, Sheldon
1976 Mokelese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 A Grammar of Lezgian. (Mouton Grammar Library 9.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heath, Jeffrey
1984 Functional Grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies.
Heath, Jeffrey
1999 A Grammar of Koyra Chiini: the Soghay of Timbuktu. (Mouton Grammar Library 19.)
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus 1998 Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36: 161−195.
Hualde, José Ignacio, and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.)
2003 A Grammar of Basque. (Mouton grammar library 26.) Berlin; New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Kayne, Richard
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Press.
Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie
1977 NP accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63−100.
Kimenyi, Alexandre
1978 A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkley/London: University of California
Press.
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1997 Turkish. (Descriptive Grammars.) London: Routledge.
Koutsoudas, Andreas
1966 Writing Transformational Grammars: an Introduction. New York/St Louis/San Fran-
sisco/Toronto/London/Sydney: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Lambrecht, Knut
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations
of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langdon, Margaret
1970 A Grammar of Diegueño. The Mesa Grande Dialect. (University of California Publica-
tions in Linguistics 84.) Berkley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.
La Polla, Randy, and Dory Poa
2006 On describing word order. In: Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans
(eds.), Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 269−295.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lazard, Guilbert
1992 A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.
LeCron, Mary
1969 The Tarascan Language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lehmann, Christian
1989 Language description and general comparative grammar. In: Gottfried Graustein, and
Gerhard Leitner (eds.), Reference Grammars and Modern Linguistic Theory, 133−162.
(Linguistische Arbeiten 226.) Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
Leech, Geoffrey, and Jan Svarvik
1975 A Communicative Grammar of English: London: Longman.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson
1981 Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley; London: University of
California Press.
Longacre, Robert E.
1985 Sentences as combination of clauses. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology
and Syntactic Description. Complex Constructions, 235−286. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mahootian, Shahrzad
1997 Persian. (Descriptive Grammars.) London: Routledge.
Malouf, Robert
2000 Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism.)
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
Maslova, Elena
2003 A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. (Mouton Grammar Library 27.) Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Mc Lendon, Sally
1975 A Grammar of Eastern Pomo. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 74.)
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meyer, Ronny
2006 Wolane: Descriptive Grammar of an East Gurage Language (Ethiosemitic). Köln: Rüdi-
ger Köppe.
Mithun, Marianne
1976 A Grammar of Tuscarora.(Garland Studies in American Indian Linguistics.) New York:
Garland Publications.
Mithun, Marianne
2006 Grammars and community. In: Thomas Payne, and David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on
Grammar Writing, 281−306. (Studies in Language 30, 2.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mosel, Ulrike
2006 Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars. In: Felix K. Ameka, Alan
Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching Language: The Standing Challenge
of Grammar Writing, 41−68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Morse, Nancy L., and Michael B. Maxwell
1999 Cubeo Grammar. (Studies in the Languages of Colombia 5.) Summer Institute of Lin-
guistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.
Munro, Pamela
2006 From parts of speech to the grammar. In: Thomas Payne, and David Weber (eds.),
Perspectives on Grammar Writing, 307−349. (Studies in Language 30, 2.) Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Næss, Åshild
2004 What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114:
1186−1212.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir
1995 Some typological parameters of converbs. In: Martin Haspelmath, and Ekkehard König
(eds.), Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective, 97−136. (Empirical Approaches to Lan-
guage Typology 13.) Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nikolaeva, Irina
2005 [review article of:] E. Maslova “A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir”. Linguistic Typology
9: 299−325.
Nikolaeva, Irina, and Maria Tolskaya
2001 A Grammar of Udihe. (Mouton Grammar Library 21.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Noonan, Michael
1992 A Grammar of Lango. (Mouton Grammar Library 21.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Noonan, Michael
2006 Grammar writing for a grammar reading audience. In: Thomas Payne, and David Weber
(eds.), Perspectives on Grammar Writing, 351−365. (Studies in Language 30, 2.) Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Olawsky, Knut J.
2006 A Grammar of Urarina. (Mouton Grammar Library 37.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Payne, Thomas
1997 Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Payne, Thomas
2006 A grammar as a communicative act or What does a grammatical description really
describe? In: Thomas Payne, and David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on Grammar Writ-
ing, 367−383. Studies in Language 30, 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Payne, Thomas, and David Weber
2006 Introduction. In: Thomas Payne, and David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on Grammar
Writing, 236−243. (Studies in Language 30, 2.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pike, Kenneth L.
1954−1960 Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior,
3 vols. The Hague: Mouton.
Plaisier, Heleen
2007 A Grammar of Lepcha. (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library. Languages of the Greater Hima-
layan Region 5/5.) Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Rice, Keren
1989 A Grammar of Slave. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, Keren
2006a Let the language tell the story? The role of linguistic theory in writing grammars. In:
Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench, and Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching Language:
The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 235−268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, Keren
2006b A typology of good grammars. In: Thomas Payne, and David Weber (eds.), Perspectives
on Grammar Writing, 385−415. (Studies in Language 30, 2.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Rosen
2001 The interpretive value of object splits. Language Sciences 23: 425−451.
Rood, David
1976 Wichita Grammar. New York: Garland Publications.
Rosen, Sara
1989 Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language 65: 294−317.
Sakel, Jeanette
2004 A Grammar of Mosetén. (Mouton Grammar Library 33.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Salminen, Tapani
1997 Tundra Nenets Inflection. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 227.) Helsinki:
Finno-Ugric Society.
Spencer, Andrew
2005 Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories’. In: C. Orhan Orgun, and Peter Sells (eds.),
Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe, 95−
138. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Tolsma, Gerard Jacobus
2006 A Grammar of Kulung. (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 5/4 Languages of the Greater
Himalayan Region.) Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Van Oirsouw, Robert R.
1987 The Syntax of Coordination. (Croom Helm Linguistics Series.) London: Croom Helm.
Wali, Kashi, and Omkar Koul
1996 Kashmiri: a Cognitive-Descriptive Grammar. New York: Routledge.
van den Berg, René
1989 A Grammar of the Muna Language. (Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor
Taal,- Land- en Volkenkunde 139.) Dordrecht: Foris.
Willett, Thomas L.
1991 A Reference Grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. (Summer Institute of Linguistics Pub-
lications in Linguistics 100.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Woolford, Ellen
1999 Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. In: Paul Kotey (ed.), New Dimensions in
African Linguistics and Languages, 203−216. (Trends in African Linguistics 3.) Trenton:
Africa World Press.
Woolford, Ellen
2000 Object agreement in Palauan: Specificity, humanness, economy and optimality. In: Ileana
Paul, Vivianne Phillips, and Lisa Travis (eds.), Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguis-
tics, 215−245. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Irina Nikolaeva, London (UK)
60. Language Documentation

1. What is language documentation
2. Linguistic fieldwork and community involvement
3. Text data in language documentation
4. Annotation and metadata for text data
5. Other materials in language documentation
6. On the relationship between linguistic theory, language description and
language documentation
Abstract
Language Documentation has developed relatively recently as a subfield of linguistics
in response to the challenge of documenting endangered languages in a fieldwork setting
and the ethical, methodological and practical issues accompanying such a task. This
article provides an overview of recommended standards in the field and of the factors
likely to influence methodological decisions in individual documentation projects. It also
discusses similarities and differences between the related fields of documentary linguis-
tics and corpus linguistics, and places documentary practices in the wider context of
questions of evidence in linguistics.
1. What is language documentation?

The term “Language Documentation” can be interpreted as denoting both a process and
a result. In the result reading, language documentation has been defined as a lasting,
multipurpose record of a language in the sense of a “comprehensive corpus of primary
data which leaves nothing to be desired by later generations wanting to explore whatever
aspect of the language they are interested in” (Himmelmann 2006a: 3). In other words,
View publication stats

4-HSK Syntax Chapter 59 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4-HSK Syntax Chapter 59 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · January 2015

Prominent Possessors View project

Endangered languages and cultures of Siberia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

59. Reference Grammars

2. Older reference grammars

tion of missionary linguists devoted to Bible translations. Tagmemics as a system of

One example of a grammatical description of basic syntactic processes completed

3. The descriptive framework of Basic Linguistic Theory

3.1. Basic Linguistic Theory as a theoretical tool

raised awareness of many linguistic phenomena not previously considered interesting.

(1) djaying kun-murrng birri-murrng-moyhme-y [Bininj Gun-wok]

3.3. Terminology and representational conventions

Basic Linguistic Theory avoids theory-specific terminology. Or rather, it employs estab-

3.4. Data collection

4.1. Relative clauses

4.2. Differential object marking

(4) āle āmta bhānche-ta bir-ju [Dolakha Newar]

Genetti concludes that in Newar all object-like arguments appear to be expressed by a

object is characterized by some degree of discourse saliency in addition to being animate.

(5) mamə miniha(-wə) dækka [Sinhala]

(6) dâlân-e derâz-e târik-i-râ peymud [Persian]

(7) do-fenamisi-e-mo ka-gharo-no taghi [Muna]

Irina Nikolaeva, London (UK)

60. Language Documentation

1. What is language documentation?

View publication stats

You might also like