References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.). 2012. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic typology. Explorations in linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660223.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Awobuluyi, A. Oladele. 1978. Essentials of Yoruba grammar. Ibadan: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bang, Willy. 1921. Vom Köktürkischen zum Osmanischen. Vorarbeiten zu einer vergleichenden Grammatik des Türkischen. 4. Mitteilung: Durch das Possessivsuffix erweiterte Nominalstämme. Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1921, Nr. 2. Berlin.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2015. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.4.22, retrieved December 2013 from http://www.praat.org/Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle & Martha C. Muntzel. 1989. The structural consequences of language death. In Nancy C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating obsolescence. Studies in language contraction and death, 181–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620997.016Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor. 1989. Alienability, inalienability and nominal classification. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 15. 24–36.10.3765/bls.v15i0.1734Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary & William McGregor. 1996. Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability. In Hilary Chappell & William McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability. Empirical approaches to language typology (EALT 14), 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter10.1515/9783110822137.3Search in Google Scholar

Erdal, Marcel. 2010. Inalienability and syncopation in Turkish. In Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds.), Turcology in Mainz –Turkologie in Mainz (Turcologica 82), 147–153. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819.10.2307/413373Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Alienable vs. inalienable possessive constructions. Syntactic universals and usage frequency. Leipzig Spring School on Linguistic Diversity.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581908Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. Descriptive grammars. London [u.a.]: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1998. Possession in Yucatec Maya. (LINCOM studies in native American linguistics 04). München [i. e.] Unterschleissheim [u.a.]: LINCOM Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2014. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 7th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com, last access: 13/05/2014Search in Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, Frantisek, Jyotsna Vaid & Hsin-Chin Chen. 2011. On the interpretation of alienable vs. inalienable possession: A psycholinguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 629–825.10.1515/cogl.2011.025Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1). 56–119.10.1353/lan.1986.0014Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago [i.a.]: Univ. of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ries, Veronika, Stavros Skopeteas, Emrah Turan & Kristin Nahrmann. 2014. Discovering the prehistory of multilingual situations in the lexicon. An empirical study on the Caucasian Urum vocabulary. Linguistik online 64(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.64.1373. Last access 03.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

Seiler, Hans-Jakob. 1982. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar

Skopeteas, Stavros, Violeta Moisidi, Eleni Sella-Mazi & Efy Yordanoglu. 2011. Urum basic lexicon (Working papers of the Urum documentation project). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld (online available at http://urum.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/). Last access 01.10.2015.Search in Google Scholar

Skopeteas, Stavros. 2013. Caucasian Urums and Urum language (Kafkasya Urumları ve Urum Dili). In Süer Eker & Ülkü Çelik (eds.), The handbook of endangered Turkic languages, 333–364. Ankara: University of Ankara.Search in Google Scholar

Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages. A comparative handbook, 55–75. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110218442.55Search in Google Scholar

Tekinay, Alev. 2002. Günaydın. Einführung in die moderne türkische Sprache. Teil 1. 2., erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.10.29091/9783752000320Search in Google Scholar

Thull, Lina & Bettina Rempel. 2012. Possession im Urum. a-ling Forschung und Studium in der Allgemeinen Linguistik, HEFT 2. Nominalkategorien in Urum. 9–17. Universität Bielefeld.Search in Google Scholar

Verhoeven, Elisabeth, Violeta Moisidi & Efy Yordanoglu. 2011. Urum basic grammatical structures (Working papers of the Urum documentation project). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld (online available at http://urum.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/). Last access 01.10.2015.Search in Google Scholar

Wade, Terence. 2011. A comprehensive Russian grammar. Oxford [u.a.]: Wiley-Backwell.Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1972. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Hafner.Search in Google Scholar