Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity versus economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam & Tikaram Poudel. 2007. Distribution of the ergative in Nepali. Manuscript, University of Konstanz.

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English: University of Massachusetts, PhD dissertation.

Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology. Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals & linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–657.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138.Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hoop, Helen de & Andrej Malchukov. 2007. On fluid differential case marking: A bidirectional OT approach. Lingua 117. 1636–1656.Google Scholar

Hoop, Helen de & Andrej Malchukov. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4). 565–587.Google Scholar

Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2005. Differential case-marking in Hindi. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case, 321–346. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2008. Ergative case-marking in Hindi. In H. de Hoop & P. de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking, 63–78. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hoop, Helen de & Peter de Swart (eds.), 2008. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The space of case: Radboud University Nijmegen, PhD dissertation.

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej & Helen de Hoop. 2011. Tense, aspect, and mood based differential case marking. Lingua 121(1). 35–47.Google Scholar

Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1985. The extended accusative/restricted nominative in perspective. In F. Plank (ed.), Relational typology, 269–311. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Poudel, Tikaram. 2007. Ergativity and stage/individual level predications in Nepali and Manipuri. Manuscript, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar

Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Svorou, Soteria. 1993. The grammar of space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Swart, Peter de. 2003. The case mirror. Radboud University Nijmegen, MA thesis.

Swart, Peter de. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Radboud University Nijmegen, PhD thesis.

Swart, Peter de. 2011. Sense and simplicity: Bidirectionality in differential case marking. In Anton Benz & Jason Mattausch (eds.), Bidirectional optimality theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Trask, Robert L. 1979. On the origin of ergativity. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Toward a theory of grammatical relations, 269–311. New York: Academic press.Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 2001. Case patterns. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw & S. Vikner (eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax, 509–545. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 2007. Aspect splits as contextual faithfulness. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts.

Zeevat, Henk. 2000. The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics. Journal of Semantics 17. 243–262.Google Scholar