This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Linguistics This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale.

Hello, we are a group of UBC linguistics students that are planning to edit and add to the content on this page for our final project!

Our first steps will be to fix the formatting of some of the citations. We will also add some more research to the already existing topic: Distribution of switch-reference. Eventually we plan to add to other topics such as Non-canonical switch-reference, as well as add more examples with trees to illustrate some of the data from the sources we are reporting on.

Other topics that we hope to cover include: Principles of Switch-reference systems; Different perspectives; Functions; and MorphologySyntaxchamp (talk)05:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info, better writing, and examples will soon follow.Ergative rlt06:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ineptness with tables and other formatting methods is holding up some of my intended examples, as everything comes out ugly. If I can't get them to come out right, I'll add them in the best approximation that I can, and perhaps someone else can clean them up.Ergative rlt20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article I read: "In addition, many languages exhibitnon-canonical switch-reference, the co-referents of arguments other than the subject being marked by switch-reference. Here is an example fromKiowa (Watkins 1993):

"

First of all, I do not know whether the verb formkwút includes the lexical meaning ofletter. If not, I think an indiciation ofletter is missing in the Kiowa example.

Secondly, I understand that this paragraph addresses the switch-referencing (or not) of other elements than the subject. Then why is the Kiowa wordgɔ marked as beingand.SS? I understand thatand.SS indicates same subject. But there seem to be different subjects in the example sentence, or is there perhaps ergativity or passivity at play? Please clarify.Redav (talk)17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles