Grammatical Gender: A Close Look at Gender Assignment Across Languages

Literature Cited

1. Acquaviva P. 2008. Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
2. Acquaviva P. 2018. Categorization as noun construction: gender, number, and entity types. Gender and Noun Classification É Mathieu, M Dali, G Zareikar 41–63 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
3. Aksenov AT. 1984. K probleme èkstralingvističeskoj motivacii grammatičeskoj kategorii roda. Vopr. Jazyk. 1:14–25
   [Google Scholar]
4. Alexiadou A. 2004. Inflection class, gender and DP-internal structure. Explorations in Nominal Inflection G Müller, L Gunkel, G Zifonun 21–50 Berlin: de Gruyter
   [Google Scholar]
5. Alexiadou A, Lohndal T, Åfarli TA, Grimstad MB 2015. Language mixing: a Distributed Morphology approach. Proceedings of NELS 45 T Bui, D Özyildiz 25–38 Amherst, MA: Univ. Mass. Amherst Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Alexiadou A, Müller G. 2008. Class features as probes. Inflectional Identity A Bachrach, A Nevins 101–55 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
7. Arad M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretations of roots. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 21:737–78
   [Google Scholar]
8. Arad M. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
9. Asher RE. 1982. Tamil Amsterdam: North-Holland
10. Austin PK. 2011. A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia., 2nd ed.., version 2.0, updated Feb. 2011. https://www.academia.edu/2491078/A_Grammar_of_Diyari_South_Australia
11. Bailyn JF, Nevins A. 2008. Russian genitive plurals are impostors. Inflectional Identity A Bachrach, A Nevins 237–70 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
12. Beard R. 1995. The gender-animacy hypothesis. J. Slav. Linguist. 3:59–96
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bermúdez-Otero R. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25:3–103
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bernstein J. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance and Germanic languages PhD Diss., City Univ New York, New York:
15. Bobaljik JD. 2008. Where's Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. Phi Theory: Phi-Features Across Interfaces and Modules D Adger, S Béjar, D Harbour 295–328 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
16. Brody M. 1997. Perfect chains. Elements of Grammar Liliane Haegeman 139–67 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
17. Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble New York: Routledge
18. Butt J, Benjamin C. 2011. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
19. Carlson R. 1994. A Grammar of Supyire Berlin: de Gruyter
20. Carstens V. 2010. Implications of grammatical gender for the theory of uninterpretable features. Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars M Putnam 31–57 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
21. Carstens V. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121:721–41
    [Google Scholar]
22. Chomsky N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries, the framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik R Martin, D Michaels, J Uriagereka 89–155 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
23. Chomsky N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstowicz 1–52 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
24. Corbett G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. J. Linguist. 15:203–24
    [Google Scholar]
25. Corbett G. 1991. Gender Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
26. Corbett G. 2006. Agreement Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
27. Corbett G. 2013. Sex-based and non-sex-based gender systems. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online MS Dryer, M Haspelmath Leipzig, Ger: Max Planck Inst. Evol. Anthropol https://wals.info/chapter/31
    [Google Scholar]
28. Corbett G 2014a. The Expression of Gender Berlin: de Gruyter
29. Corbett G. 2014b. Gender typology. The Expression of Gender G Corbett 87–130 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
30. Corbett G, Fedden S. 2016. Canonical gender. J. Linguist. 52:495–531
    [Google Scholar]
31. Corbett G, Fraser N. 2000. Gender assignment: a typology and model. Systems of Nominal Classification G Senft 293–325 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
32. Dahl Ö 2000. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Part I: Approaches to Gender B Unterbeck 99–116 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
33. Déchaine R-M. 2018. Partitioning the nominal domain: the convergence of morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Gender and Noun Classification É Mathieu, M Dali, G Zareikar 17–40 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
34. Doleschal U. 2000. Gender assignment revisited. Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Part I: Approaches to Gender B Unterbeck 117–65 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
35. Durrell M. 2011. Hammer's German Grammar and Usage London: Hodder Education, 5th ed..
36. Embick D, Halle M. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 T Geerts, I von Ginneken, H Jacobs 37–62 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
37. Evans N, Brown D, Corbett G 2002. The semantics of gender in Mayali: partially parallel systems and formal implementation. Language 78:111–55
    [Google Scholar]
38. Fassi Fehri A. 2018. Multiple facets of constructional Arabic gender and ‘functional universalism’ in the DP. Gender and Noun Classification É Mathieu, M Dali, G Zareikar 67–92 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
39. Ferrari F. 2005. A syntactic analysis of the nominal systems of Italian and Luganda: how nouns can be formed in the syntax PhD Diss., New York Univ. New York:
40. Foris DP. 2000. A Grammar of Sochiapan Chinantec Dallas, TX: SIL Int.
41. Frantz DG. 2017. Blackfoot Grammar Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press, 3rd ed..
42. Fraser NM, Corbett G. 1995. Gender, animacy, and declensional class assignment: a unified account for Russian. Yearbook of Morphology 1994, ed. G Booji, J van Marlepp. 123–50 Dordrecht, Neth. Springer:
    [Google Scholar]
43. Fuchs Z, van der Wal J 2018. Bantu DP structure: an analysis of gender Paper presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America Salt Lake City, UT: Jan. 4–7
44. Goddard I. 2002. Grammatical gender in Algonquian. Proceedings of the 33rd Algonquian Conference HC Wolfart 195–231 Winnipeg, Can.: Univ. Manit. Press
    [Google Scholar]
45. Greenberg JH. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers?. Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3:Word Structure JH Greenberg 47–82 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
46. Halle M. 1997. Distributed Morphology: impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the Interface B Bruening, Y Kang, M McGinnis 425–49 Cambridge, MA: MIT Work. Pap. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Harris J. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguist. Inq. 22:27–62
    [Google Scholar]
48. Hedinger R. 2008. A Grammar of Akɔɔse: A Northwest Bantu Language Dallas, TX: SIL Int.
49. Hellinger M, Bußmann H 2001–2015. Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men Amsterdam: Benjamins
50. Hockett CF. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics New York: Macmillan
51. Kihm A. 2005. Noun class, gender and the lexicon-syntax-morphology interfaces: a comparative study of Niger-Congo and Romance languages. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax G Cinque, RS Kayne 459–512 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
52. Kilarski M. 2013. Nominal Classification: A History of Its Study from the Classical Period to the Present Amsterdam: Benjamins
53. King KE. 2015. Mixed gender agreement in Russian DPs MA Thesis: Univ. Wash., Seattle
54. Kramer R. 2009. Definite markers, phi-features, and agreement: a morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP PhD Diss. Univ. Calif., Santa Cruz
55. Kramer R. 2014. Gender in Amharic: a morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Lang. Sci. 43:102–15
    [Google Scholar]
56. Kramer R. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
57. Kramer R. 2016. The location of gender features in the syntax. Lang. Linguist. Compass 10:661–77
    [Google Scholar]
58. Lecarme J. 2002. Gender “polarity”: theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. Many Morphologies P Boucher, M Plénat 109–41 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
    [Google Scholar]
59. Leslau W. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz
60. Lowenstamm J. 2008. On little n, √, and types of nouns. Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology J Hartmann, V Hegedűs, H van Riemsdijk 105–44 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
61. Marantz A. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the 1991 Eastern States Conference on Linguistics234–53 Columbus, OH: Ohio State Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Marantz A. 1997. No escape from syntax. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 4:201–25
    [Google Scholar]
63. Marantz A. 2001. Words Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics Los Angeles, CA: Feb. 23–25
64. Matasović R. 2004. Gender in Indo-European Heidelberg, Ger.: Winter
65. Mathieu É, Dali M, Zareikar G 2018. Gender and Noun Classification Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
66. Morin R. 2010. Terminal letters, phonemes, and morphemes in Spanish gender assignment. Linguistics 48:143–69
    [Google Scholar]
67. Müller G. 2004. A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12 O Arnaudova, W Browne, ML Rivero, D Stojanović 353–74 Ann Arbor, MI: Mich. Slav. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Nesset T. 2006. Gender meets the usage-based model: four principles of rule interaction in gender assignment. Lingua 116:1369–93
    [Google Scholar]
69. Newman P. 1979. Explaining Hausa feminines. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 10:197–224
    [Google Scholar]
70. Newman P. 2000. The Hausa Language New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
71. Nichols J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
72. Nikunlassi A. 2000. On gender assignment in Russian. Gender in Grammar and Cognition B Unterbeck 771–92 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
73. Oltra-Massuet MI. 1999. On the notion of theme vowel: a new approach to Catalan verbal morphology MS Thesis, Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge, MA:
74. Oltra-Massuet MI, Arregi K. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguist. Inq. 36:43–84
    [Google Scholar]
75. Pereltsvaig A. 2006. Small nominals. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 24:433–500
    [Google Scholar]
76. Pesetsky D. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
77. Pesetsky D, Torrego E. 2001. T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. Ken Hale: A Life in Language M Kenstowicz 355–426 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
78. Pesetsky D, Torrego E. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. Phrasal and Clausal Architecture S Karimi, V Samiian, WK Wilkins 262–94 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
79. Picallo MC. 2008. Gender and number in Romance. Ling. Linguaggio 7:47–66
    [Google Scholar]
80. Plaster K, Polinsky M, Harizanov B 2013. Noun classes grow on trees: noun classification in the North-East Caucasus. Language Typology and Historical Contingency B Bickel, LA Grenoble, DA Peterson, A Timberlake 153–70 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
81. Ralli A. 2002. The role of morphology in gender determination: evidence from Modern Greek. Linguistics 40:519–51
    [Google Scholar]
82. Rappaport GC. 2013. Determiner phrases and mixed agreement in Slavic. The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond L Schürcks, A Giannakidou, U Etxeberria 343–90 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
83. Rice C. 2006. Optimizing gender. Lingua 116:1394–417
    [Google Scholar]
84. Riente L. 2003. Ladies first: the pivotal role of gender in the Italian nominal inflection system. McGill Work. Pap. Linguist. 17:21–54
    [Google Scholar]
85. Roca IM. 1989. The organisation of grammatical gender. Trans. Philol. Soc. 87:1–32
    [Google Scholar]
86. Sande H. 2018. Phonologically determined nominal concord as post-syntactic: evidence from Guébie. J. Linguist. 55:831–78
    [Google Scholar]
87. Sauerland U. 2004. A comprehensive semantics for agreement Work. Pap., ZAS Berlin: https://www.academia.edu/336216/A_Comprehensive_Semantics_for_Agreement
88. Schiller NO. 2014. Psycholinguistic approaches to the investigation of grammatical gender. The Expression of Gender G Corbett 161–90 Berlin: de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
89. Steriopolo O. 2018. Morphosyntax of gender in Russian sex-differentiable nouns. J. Slav. Linguist. 26:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
90. Steriopolo O, Wiltschko M. 2010. Distributed GENDER hypothesis. Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5 G Zybatow, P Dudchuk, S Minor, E Pshehotskaya 155–72 New York: Peter Lang
    [Google Scholar]
91. Thornton AM. 2009. Constraining gender assignment rules. Lang. Sci. 31:14–32
    [Google Scholar]
92. Tryon DT. 1974. Daly Family Languages, Australia. Canberra, Aust.: Aust. Natl. Univ.
93. Tucker AN, Bryan MA. 1966. Linguistic Analyses of the Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
94. Wechsler S, Zlatić L. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
95. Yatsushiro K, Sauerland U. 2006. [Feminine] in a high position. Snippets 13:11–12
    [Google Scholar]