Hubbry Logo
Marker (linguistics)Marker (linguistics)Main
Open search
Marker (linguistics)
Community hub
Marker (linguistics)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Marker (linguistics)
Marker (linguistics)
Marker (linguistics)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In linguistics, a marker is a free or bound morpheme that indicates the grammatical function of the marked word, phrase, or sentence. Most characteristically, markers occur as clitics or inflectional affixes. In analytic languages and agglutinative languages, markers are generally easily distinguished. In fusional languages and polysynthetic languages, this is often not the case. For example, in Latin, a highly fusional language, the word amō ("I love") is marked by suffix -ō for indicative mood, active voice, first person, singular, present tense. Analytic languages tend to have a relatively limited number of markers.

Markers should be distinguished from the linguistic concept of markedness. An unmarked form is the basic "neutral" form of a word, typically used as its dictionary lemma, such as—in English—for nouns the singular (e.g. cat versus cats), and for verbs the infinitive (e.g. to eat versus eats, ate and eaten). Unmarked forms (e.g. the nominative case in many languages) tend to be less likely to have markers, but this is not true for all languages (compare Latin). Conversely, a marked form may happen to have a zero affix, like the genitive plural of some nouns in Russian (e.g. сапо́г). In some languages, the same forms of a marker have multiple functions, such as when used in different cases or declensions (for example -īs in Latin).

See also

[edit]
[edit]

Types of marking

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Marker (linguistics)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In linguistics, a marker is a morpheme, either free or bound, that signals a specific grammatical or morphosyntactic function within a word, phrase, or sentence, such as indicating tense, number, case, or plurality. These elements are fundamental to grammar across languages, enabling speakers to convey relational and categorical information efficiently without relying solely on word order or context. Grammatical markers are inflectional, modifying a word to express features like tense or agreement, as seen in the English suffix -s for third-person singular in verbs (e.g., "she walks") or plurality in nouns (e.g., "cats"). In agglutinative languages like Turkish, markers stack sequentially to build complex words, such as the case and possessive suffixes in ev-ler-im-de ("in my houses"). Beyond , markers include specialized forms like case markers in languages such as Latin or Japanese, which denote syntactic roles (e.g., nominative or accusative). They may also include markers in languages like Quechua, which indicate the source of information (e.g., direct observation). Cross-linguistically, the distribution of marker forms and meanings optimizes communication by assigning shorter forms to more frequent or predictable categories, reducing while minimizing ambiguity. This efficiency is evident in typological studies showing near-optimal trade-offs between form simplicity and informational precision in domains like number marking across 37 languages. Markers differ from discourse markers, which are pragmatic particles (e.g., "well" or "you know") that manage conversational flow rather than grammatical structure, though both contribute to coherent language use. In and typology, markers evolve through , where or phrases lose independent semantic weight to become obligatory grammatical signals. Their study illuminates universal patterns in human language design, influencing fields from to efforts.

Fundamentals

Definition

In , a marker is a free or bound that indicates the grammatical function, category, or relation of a word, , or sentence, such as tense, case, number, or mood. These elements serve to specify structural relationships within , enabling the expression of syntactic and morphological properties essential to sentence formation. Markers differ from general morphemes in that they primarily encode grammatical rather than lexical meaning, focusing on relational or categorical information rather than contributing to the core conceptual content of words. Unlike lexical morphemes, which can stand alone and carry independent semantic weight (e.g., roots like "walk"), markers often function obligatorily within certain constructions to ensure grammatical well-formedness, such as requiring agreement in or number. Key attributes of markers include their potential to be overt, manifested as affixes, particles, or other phonological forms, or , where the absence of an explicit form signals a default (e.g., the lack of an article before proper nouns in English indicating ). They integrate into processes, particularly , without significantly altering the base's inherent semantics, thereby preserving the lexical identity while imposing grammatical constraints. For instance, in English, the past tense marker "-ed" in "walked" denotes but does not modify the verb's fundamental meaning of motion.

Historical Context

The concept of linguistic markers emerged and gained prominence in the mid-20th century through , heavily influenced by Leonard Bloomfield's foundational text (1933), which analyzed morphemes as the smallest meaningful units and introduced "marker" to denote elements signaling , such as special words or forms attached to bases. Bloomfield's emphasis on empirical description of morphological structures laid the groundwork for viewing markers as indicators of syntactic and semantic dependencies in language forms. The term was further adopted and refined in by in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), where inherent grammatical features—like tense or —were encoded on lexical items using feature systems to facilitate syntactic operations and phrase structure generation. This usage shifted focus toward abstract representational properties within a , marking a departure from purely descriptive toward explanatory models of competence. Subsequent evolution integrated markers into typological linguistics through the World Atlas of Language Structures (2005), which mapped grammatical features across diverse language families to reveal patterns in expression and variation. Post-1980s developments in broadened the scope of markers to include clitics and particles, as explored in Arnold Zwicky's seminal article "Clitics and Particles" (1985), which distinguished these bound or semi-bound forms from affixes and independent words, aligning with trends toward analytic structures in language evolution. This expansion emphasized pragmatic and functions, adapting the concept to usage-based explanations of in functional paradigms.

Forms and Realization

Bound Markers

Bound markers in linguistics are non-independent morphemes, known as affixes, that attach to a base or root to indicate grammatical functions such as tense, number, case, or aspect. These markers cannot stand alone and must combine with other morphemes to form words, distinguishing them from free morphemes. Common types include prefixes, which precede the base (e.g., the German prefix ge- marking perfective aspect in past participles like gegessen 'eaten'); suffixes, which follow the base (e.g., the English suffix -s indicating plural nouns, as in cats); infixes, which insert within the base (rare in Indo-European languages but present in some Austronesian languages); and circumfixes, which surround the base with parts on both sides (e.g., the German ge-...-t in past participles like gemacht 'made'). While some bound markers like the English prefix un- can serve derivational purposes (e.g., negation in unhappy), grammatical bound markers primarily encode inflectional categories. The attachment of bound markers is regulated by language-specific phonological and morphological rules, which determine how affixes integrate with stems without violating sound patterns or word formation constraints. In fusional languages, such as Latin, bound markers often fuse with the root, blending phonological forms to simultaneously convey multiple grammatical features; for instance, the suffix -ō in amō ('I love') merges indicators of first person, singular number, and present tense into a single fused ending. These rules can involve processes like vowel harmony, stress shifts, or consonant alternations to ensure phonological well-formedness, as seen in the templatic constraints governing affix placement in many languages. Bound markers facilitate compact expression of complex in synthetic languages, allowing multiple categories like tense and agreement to be encoded within a single word form, which enhances efficiency in conveying syntactic . However, this integration can introduce limitations, such as irregularity, where stem changes or suppletive forms deviate from predictable patterns; in English, strong verbs exhibit ablaut, as in sing to sang, involving vowel alternation rather than a consistent like -ed. Such irregularities arise from historical changes and analogical leveling, complicating morphological . Bound markers are most frequent in inflectional languages, particularly those in the Indo-European family, where they form the core of word to mark categories like tense and case, whereas they are rare or absent in isolating languages that rely on and free particles for grammatical signaling. This predominance reflects the synthetic nature of inflectional systems, which prioritize affixation over analytic constructions. For example, bound markers often signal inflectional roles such as tense, though their specific functions are explored further in grammatical analyses.

Free Markers and Clitics

Free markers and clitics represent categories of grammatical markers that exhibit varying degrees of phonological independence while serving essential syntactic functions. Free markers are standalone words or particles that function as independent syntactic constituents, often indicating without attaching to other words. For instance, in English, the infinitive marker "to" precedes the base form of a to signal non-finite verbal status, as in "to eat," where "to" operates as a free without phonological reduction or dependency. Similarly, in , the aspect particle "le" (了) marks by indicating the completion of an action, appearing after the verb as a free element, such as in "wǒ chī le fàn" (I ate the meal), where it views the event as a bounded whole. Clitics, in contrast, are prosodically defective elements that depend phonologically on a host word for stress and realization but maintain syntactic , behaving like full words in phrase structure. They can belong to categories such as , articles, or negators and typically lack independent accent, requiring attachment via proclisis (before the host) or enclisis (after the host). A classic example is the French negation system, where "ne" functions as a preverbal in constructions like "je ne sais pas" (I do not know), leaning phonologically on the while syntactically scoping over the ; "" often complements it as a non- . In English, clitics appear in contractions, such as "'s" representing "is" or "has" in "she's eating," where the reduced form attaches to the but retains the auxiliary's syntactic role. Phonologically, clitics undergo prosodic reduction, such as vowel shortening or loss of stress, integrating into the host's prosodic domain without forming a separate phonological word; for example, English "'s" in contractions merges seamlessly with the preceding word, reducing the sequence to a single stress unit. Yet, syntactically, they project as independent constituents, capable of participating in coordination or movement operations that affixes cannot, distinguishing them from bound forms. Free markers, by comparison, preserve full prosodic independence, bearing their own stress and standing alone in utterances, as with English "to" or Chinese "le," which do not require hosts. In analytic languages, which rely minimally on inflectional fusion, free markers and clitics play a crucial role in expressing grammatical categories through separate words or loose attachments, avoiding alterations to lexical roots. English exemplifies this with the auxiliary "have," a free marker that signals perfect aspect in constructions like "I have eaten," indicating of a past event to the present without modifying the main verb's form. Such elements enable precise syntactic encoding in languages with low morpheme-per-word ratios, prioritizing and independent particles over synthetic compounding. A key challenge in analyzing these markers lies in boundary ambiguities, particularly distinguishing clitics from affixes due to overlapping phonological traits like reduction. In , Wackernagel clitics—such as pronominal enclitics in or —position second in the (e.g., after the first accented word), exhibiting host dependency that blurs with affixation, yet their syntactic mobility confirms status. This ambiguity often requires cross-referencing phonological weakness against syntactic distribution to classify elements accurately.

Grammatical Functions

Inflectional Roles

Inflectional markers primarily encode obligatory grammatical categories such as tense, aspect, number, , and case, which are essential for expressing syntactic relationships within words or phrases. For instance, in English, the -ing functions as an aspect marker to indicate progressive tense, as in "running," signaling ongoing action. Similarly, the -s ending on verbs marks third- singular agreement in the , as in "walks," ensuring concordance with the subject. In Latin, the ending -us on second-declension nouns, such as dominus (""), identifies the subject role in a sentence. Unlike derivational morphology, which optionally alters word meaning or class, inflectional markers are obligatory, driven by syntactic requirements like agreement and argument structure. In Spanish, endings inflect for , number, and tense to match the subject, as seen in the conjugation of hablar ("to speak"): hablo for first- singular present indicative, but hablamos for first- plural, enforcing subject- agreement across the . This obligatoriness distinguishes inflection from derivation, where additions like prefixes or suffixes create new lexical items without syntactic compulsion. Inflectional markers often exhibit polyfunctionality, where a single form simultaneously conveys multiple grammatical features, enhancing efficiency in morphological systems. For example, in Turkish, the suffix -ler attaches to nouns to indicate plurality and defaults to the nominative case when no further case marker follows, as in evler ("houses," plural nominative), thus bundling number and case information. These markers facilitate head-dependent relations in by indexing agreement features between elements, such as subjects and verbs or nouns and adjectives. markers on s, for instance, align with the subject's and number, enabling the head (verb) to govern the dependent (subject) through shared inflectional properties, as in where mismatched features trigger ungrammaticality. Such interactions are typically realized through bound forms like suffixes, reinforcing structural coherence.

Syntactic and Semantic Roles

Markers play crucial roles in shaping sentence structure by signaling syntactic relations such as voice, mood, and . In English, the is constructed using the auxiliary "be" combined with the past participle suffix "-en," which shifts focus from the agent to the patient, as in "The book was read by the student," thereby altering the argument structure of the clause. For mood, the subjunctive form in English, marked by the base verb form in certain contexts (e.g., "I suggest that she go"), expresses hypotheticals, wishes, or necessities, distinguishing it from the indicative mood used for factual statements. markers, such as the English articles "the" (definite) and "a/an" (indefinite), specify the referential status of nouns, influencing how entities are tracked within and integrated into syntactic phrases. Beyond core syntax, markers contribute semantic nuances by encoding aspect and , which refine the interpretation of events and their epistemic basis. In Japanese, the "-te" form functions as an aspectual marker to indicate ongoing or continuous actions, as in "tabete iru" (is eating), conveying progressive aspect rather than tense. markers in Quechua, such as the direct evidential suffix "-mi" in Cuzco Quechua (e.g., "pay-mi uyku-ran" meaning "he slept" with firsthand evidence), specify the source of the speaker's information, adding layers of epistemic commitment to the proposition. At the clause level, markers facilitate integration and organization through subordination and . Complementizers like English "that" introduce embedded , marking them as complements to verbs of or speech, as in "She knows that he left," which embeds the clause syntactically while preserving its propositional content. markers, often realized as particles in various languages (e.g., Japanese "" in " gakusei desu" emphasizing "I" as topic), front elements to establish discourse focus, restructuring clause order for pragmatic prominence without altering core semantics. Many such markers arise through , where lexical items evolve into functional elements. In English, the construction "be going to" originated as a motion indicating or direction but has grammaticalized into a future marker, as in "She is going to leave," reducing its semantic content to temporal prediction. This process exemplifies how syntactic and semantic markers often emerge from broader lexical sources, enhancing clause-level expressiveness over time.

Cross-Linguistic Examples

Indo-European Languages

In Indo-European languages, markers often exhibit fusional characteristics, where a single encodes multiple grammatical features such as , number, tense, and mood simultaneously. This blending distinguishes them from more transparent agglutinative systems, as the boundaries between morphemes are obscured, leading to portmanteau forms that require paradigmatic knowledge for interpretation. English, a Germanic language within the family, exemplifies this through its simplified yet irregular inflectional system, while Latin and other branches like display more elaborate fusional marking. English relies on zero markers for the default singular form of countable nouns, such as , where no overt indicates singularity, contrasting with the plural marker -s (e.g., cats). Irregular plurals further illustrate fusion and historical residue, as in becoming children, involving a vowel alternation (umlaut-like change from ) combined with the -ren to mark plurality. Tense marking in English is primarily analytic but incorporates fusional elements via auxiliaries; for instance, the future is expressed with the modal will, which fuses volition and futurity without dedicated inflectional endings on the main verb (e.g., I will eat). These patterns reflect English's drift toward analyticity while retaining fusional relics from its Germanic roots. Latin, a classical Indo-European language, showcases highly fusional verbal morphology through portmanteau markers that compactly encode person, number, tense, and voice. The first-person singular present indicative active of amāre ('to love') is amō, where the ending -ō fuses first person, singularity, present tense, and active voice into a single morpheme. Noun case marking similarly blends features; for example, the accusative singular of puella ('girl') is puellam, with -am indicating accusative case and singularity in first-declension feminine nouns. This fusion necessitates rote learning of paradigms, as the marker's meaning emerges only in context. German, another Germanic language, employs fusional markers on determiners and adjectives to signal gender, number, and case, often in agreement with nouns. Definite articles inflect as der (masculine nominative singular), die (feminine nominative singular), and das (neuter nominative singular), where each form fuses gender and case information. Adjectives follow suit, adding endings like -en in weak declension to mark multiple features (e.g., der gute Mann 'the good man'). Verbal markers include separable prefixes that detach in main clauses, as in aufessen ('to eat up'), where auf- prefixes completion and directionality, fusing with the root essen but separating positionally (e.g., Er wird das Essen aufessen 'He will eat up the food'). In Slavic languages like Russian, fusional case marking on nouns integrates number and case without discrete boundaries. The genitive singular of dom ('house') is doma, where the ending -a fuses genitive case (indicating possession or absence) with singularity, as seen in phrases like dver' doma ('door of the house'). This exemplifies Slavic fusion, where vowel alternations and endings blend phonological and grammatical roles, differing from analytic English but aligning with Latin's paradigmatic complexity.

Agglutinative and Isolating Languages

In agglutinative languages, markers are typically bound suffixes that attach linearly to stems, each encoding a single grammatical feature with transparent boundaries and minimal fusion. For instance, in Turkish, the marker -ın (or its variants) is added to the possessor noun to indicate possession, as in adamın kitabı ("the man's book"), where adam ("man") receives -ın, and kitab ("book") takes the possessive ending -ı, allowing clear segmentation of functions. Similarly, Japanese verbs employ suffixes like -masu to mark politeness in the , attaching to the verb stem (e.g., kare-masu "wither-POL-PRES" for vowel-final stems) while preserving distinct phonological and semantic roles for each element. This additive process enables agglutinative systems to express complex relations through stacked affixes without altering the stem's core form. Finnish exemplifies the one-to-one morpheme-feature mapping in agglutinative languages, utilizing over 15 case suffixes to denote spatial, possessive, and other relations, such as the genitive singular -n (e.g., koulun "of the ") or the inessive -ssa (e.g., talossa "in the "), where each suffix corresponds to a specific despite occasional stem alternations like . However, this stacking can produce challenges, including lengthy words; in Hungarian, multiple suffixes accumulate to form extended structures like házasulandók-nak ("for those intending to get married"), combining derivational (-asul "marry") and inflectional elements (-andó-k-nak for future , , and dative), which test phonological constraints such as and cluster formation. In contrast, isolating languages minimize bound markers, relying instead on free particles, , and context to convey grammatical information, with rare or absent inflectional affixes. illustrates this through particles like de, which links nouns in possessive constructions (e.g., wǒ de zhuōzi "my ," where de is obligatory for alienable possession), functioning as a structural marker without fusing to the stem. The aspect particle le similarly attaches post-verbally to signal perfectivity, viewing events as bounded wholes (e.g., completion with telic verbs like "knock down the house" or termination with atelic ones like "swim"), but remains a separate rather than a fused . Vietnamese employs classifiers such as con to mark , particularly for non-human entities (e.g., con vịt "duck" or con gà "chicken"), appearing as free forms in numeral or constructions to specify category without altering the itself. Agglutinative languages thus facilitate precise, modular encoding via invariant suffixes that map directly to features like case or tense, differing from isolating languages' dependence on invariant free particles and rigid syntax for similar functions, as seen in Turkish's suffixed plurals (ev-ler-i "his houses") versus Mandarin's analytic sequences without affixation. This typological distinction highlights how agglutinative markers promote synthesis within words, while isolating ones, akin to free markers discussed earlier, emphasize separation to maintain independence.

Theoretical Frameworks

Markedness Relation

In linguistic theory, markers frequently realize marked categories, which represent non-default or derived forms in grammatical oppositions, while unmarked categories—the basic or default forms—are often expressed through zero markers. This relation posits that the presence of an overt marker signals a deviation from the unmarked base, establishing an where the marked member adds semantic or functional specification. For instance, in , the nominative form "I" serves as the unmarked case for subject position, whereas the oblique form "me" is marked to indicate object roles. Roman Jakobson played a pivotal role in formalizing marked/unmarked oppositions in 1932, applying the concept to morphology by arguing that markers encode additional features on an unmarked foundation. In his analysis of Russian verbal structure, Jakobson illustrated how marked forms announce themselves through overt expression, contrasting with the unmarked's implicit presence, as seen in English where the plural suffix -s marks deviation from the singular base, which lacks such affixation. This framework emphasizes that markedness involves a hierarchical binary, with the marked term subsuming the unmarked's meaning plus extra content. Marked forms typically display asymmetries in , , and distribution relative to unmarked ones; for example, in Russian, the genitive plural demands an overt marker (e.g., -ov or zero in some declensions but generally more complex), while the nominative singular often relies on zero expression, highlighting the marked status of the former. These asymmetries extend to implications for , where children master unmarked forms earlier due to their simplicity and higher token , and to typology, where they inform cross-linguistic hierarchies of grammatical categories. However, the markedness concept has faced criticism for its ambiguity, with proposals to replace it with more precise explanations such as -based asymmetries. Exceptions to the standard pattern occur when default categories bear overt markers, challenging strict correlations; notably, mass nouns are unmarked for countability, typically lacking plural affixes to denote indivisible substances, in contrast to count nouns that require markers for plural specification.

Applications in Linguistic Typology

In , markers play a crucial role in classifying languages along the synthetic-analytic continuum, where synthetic languages employ a high density of bound markers to encode within words, while analytic languages rely minimally on such marking and instead use or free particles. For instance, polysynthetic languages like (an language) incorporate numerous affixes into verbs to mark arguments, tense, mood, and incorporation, allowing complex propositions to be expressed in single words. In contrast, analytic languages such as Vietnamese exhibit low morphological marking, with little to no inflectional affixes and grammatical functions conveyed primarily through invariant words and syntax. Data from the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) illustrate how marker density correlates with synthesis types, particularly in verbal . The inflectional synthesis of the feature measures categories per word (cpw), ranging from 0 cpw in isolating languages like Vietnamese to over 10 cpw in polysynthetic ones, with two-thirds of sampled languages falling between 4-8 cpw; high synthesis is prevalent in the , including . Regarding nominal marking, WALS data show that among 490 languages with case affixes, suffixes predominate (452 languages, approximately 92%), underscoring the prevalence of suffixal bound forms in morphological case systems. In , high-marker languages pose greater challenges due to the complexity of inflectional morphology, with children mastering bound markers more slowly than in low-marking systems. Studies on Hungarian, an with rich case affixation, reveal that even typically developing children exhibit prolonged acquisition of case marking compared to English learners, who rely on analytic strategies like . Grammaticalization processes further highlight typological dynamics, as free markers often evolve into bound affixes over time, shifting languages toward greater synthesis; for example, motion verbs like English "going to" grammaticalize into future markers, and in , auxiliary constructions fuse into verbal inflections. Amazonian languages exemplify typological diversity through specialized markers, expanding beyond standard case and agreement to include evidential and applicative forms that enrich synthesis. In Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan), applicative suffixes promote oblique arguments to core status, such as benefactive or malefactive roles, integrating them tightly into the verb complex in a manner typical of polysynthetic patterns in the region. Similarly, Shipibo employs evidential markers like -ra for and -ronki for reportative, obligatorily encoding the speaker's source of information and contributing to the language's high morphological complexity.

References

  1. https://glossary.sil.org/term/marker
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8670496/
  3. https://www.turkishtextbook.com/adding-word-endings-agglutination/
  4. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/construction-cases
  5. https://www.japanesewithanime.com/2019/09/case-markers.html
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270509024_Grammaticalization_or_pragmaticalization_of_discourse_markers_More_than_a_terminological_issue
  7. https://graphsearch.epfl.ch/concept/892231
  8. https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2017.07.03.17
  9. https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/05lect07.html
  10. https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman/papers/unpub/hyman-kt-ch2.pdf
  11. https://wals.info/
  12. https://pressbooks.openedmb.ca/wordandsentencestructures/chapter/affixes/
  13. https://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~inkelas/Papers/5.PhonologyMorphologyInteraction_Inkelas.pdf
  14. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/338-0899/roa-338-lacy-1.pdf
  15. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2000/ling001/morphology.html
  16. http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fertig/PubsTalks/StPetersburgAnglisticaTalk2016.pdf
  17. https://pressbooks.openedmb.ca/wordandsentencestructures/chapter/packaging-words-and-morphemes/
  18. http://ling.unm.edu/assets/documents/bybee2003cognitiveprocesses.pdf
  19. http://elies.rediris.es/Language_Design/LD24/LD24_02_Jie_Chen.pdf
  20. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-519
  21. https://jssh.edu.af/jssh/article/download/20/23
  22. http://people.umass.edu/scable/LING591S-FA20/Handouts/17.Aspect-English&Formalization.pdf
  23. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/on_clitics.pdf
  24. https://pressbooks.pub/essentialsoflinguistics/chapter/6-4-inflectional-morphology/
  25. https://www.harmpinkster.nl/files/articles/Cases_and_adpositions%281990%29.pdf
  26. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2022-0086/html
  27. https://hackettpublishing.com/spanish-grammar/VERBFORMS/agreement.htm
  28. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34552/chapter/293171213
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/turkic/morphology-generalities/E4C84B31207E9A2EAB9B32AD9911BBFF
  30. https://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/membres/duchier/teaching/ESSLLI-2002/heads%2Bdependents.pdf
  31. https://www.uni-regensburg.de/assets/sprache-literatur-kultur/allgemeine-vergleichende-sprachwissenschaft/pdfs/artjh_2001_headmarkingdependentmarking.pdf
  32. https://www.autotyp.uzh.ch/download/infl.pdf
  33. https://www.sfu.ca/~dearmond/322/322.passive.voice.main.htm
  34. https://linguisticsgirl.com/subjunctive-mood-english-verbs/
  35. http://www.grammaticalfeatures.net/features/definiteness.html
  36. https://academic.oup.com/jos/article-abstract/23/2/185/1620416
  37. https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/martina.t.faller/documents/thesis-a4.pdf
  38. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-506
  39. https://www.sfu.ca/~dearmond/322/322.topicalization.htm
  40. https://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/downloads/BybeePagliuca1987FutureMeaning.pdf
  41. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-103
  42. https://opentextbc.ca/psyclanguage/chapter/morphology-of-different-languages/
  43. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/881-1006/881-ICHIMURA-7-0.PDF
  44. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/36734/1/9789513944445.pdf
  45. https://aclanthology.org/2022.cogalex-1.2.pdf
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251378136_Aspect_and_Assertion_in_Mandarin_Chinese
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6326581/
  48. https://profgerhard.de/sfs/lehre/ws1011/languagesOfTheWorld/morphologicalTypology.pdf
  49. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/on-markedness.pdf
  50. https://monoskop.org/images/b/b5/Jakobson_Roman_Selected_Writings_Vol_2_Word_and_Language.pdf
  51. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article/markedness-and-second-language-acquisition/93A3A837003B1FF42187DC8DEEF510ED
  52. http://www.unice.fr/scheer/egg/Lagodekhi16/Haspelmath%2C%20M.%20%282006%29.%20Against%20markedness%20%28and%20what%20to%20replace%20it%20with%29.pdf
  53. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00589/full
  54. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-152
  55. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-532
  56. https://wals.info/chapter/22
  57. https://wals.info/chapter/51
  58. https://wals.info/chapter/49
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4435717/
  60. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-733
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278411758_2_Evidentiality_in_Shipibo-Konibo_with_a_comparative_overview_of_the_category_in_Panoan
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.