-  راسخ‌مهند، محمد و راحله ایزدی‌فر (1390)، تأثیر معرفگی بر نشانة مفعولی در زبان‌های تاتی، تالشی و بلوچی، فصلنامة پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، د 2، ش 1، بهار 1390، 41- 21.

-  راسخ‌مهند، محمد و راحله ایزدی‌فر (1391)، بررسی پیکره بنیاد مفعول‌نمایی افتراقی در مازندرانی، فصلنامة پژوهش‌های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی، د 3، ش 2 (پیاپی 10)، تابستان 1391، 130-115.

-  راسخ‌مهند، محمد (1386)، مفعول‌نمایی افتراقی در برخی زبان‌های ایرانی، مجله گویش شناسی،  نامة فرهنگستان، ش 6، 2-32.

-  راسخ‏مهند، محمد (1391)، لازم و متعدی در زبان فارسی، مجله دستور 8 : 187-169.

-  طبیب‌زاده، امید (1385)، ظرفیت فعل و ساخت‌های بنیادین جمله در فارسی امروز: پژوهشی بر اساس نظریه دستور وابستگی، تهران: نشر مرکز.

-  هوشمند، مژگان (1393)، تعدی در زبان فارسی: تحلیلی نقشی- رده‌شناختی، دانشگاه اصفهان: پایان‌نامه دکتری.

-  Aissen, J. (2003). “Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435-483.

-  Beavers, J. (2011). “On affectedness.”  Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 335-370.

-  Bossong, G. (1985). Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.

-  Comrie, B. (1975). “Definite and animate direct objects: a natural class.” Linguistica Silesiona 3, 13-21.

-  Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

-  Croft, W. (1988). “Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects.” In M. Barlow & C. A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language. Approaches, Theories, Descriptions (pp. 159-179). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

-  Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-  Dowty, D. (1991). “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.” Language, 67, 547–619.

-  Farkas, D. (1978). “Direct and indirect object reduplication in Romanian.” Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. (pp. 88–97).Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

-  Gair, James. (1970). Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures, Mouton, The Hague.

-  Ganjavi, Sh. (2007). Direct Object in Persian. Ph. D. Dissertation: University of Southern California.

-  Genetti, C. (1997). “Object relations and dative case in Dolakha Newari.” Studies in Language 211, 37–68.

-  Ghomeshi, J. (1996). Projection and Inflection: A Study of Persian Phrase Structure.

-  Ph. D. Dissertation: University of Toronto.

-  Ghomeshi, J. (1997). “Topics in Persian VPs.” Lingua 102: 133-167.

-  Heusinger, K. and G A. Kaiser. (2009). “Affectedness and differential object marking in Spanish.” To appear in Morphology.

-  Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (1980). “Transitivity in grammar and discourse.” Language, 56, 251-299.

-  Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

-  Karimi, S. (1990). “Obliqueness, specificity, and discourse Functions: Râ in Persian.” Linguistic Analysis, 20: 139-191.

-  Karimi, S. (2003). “On object positions, specificity and scrambling in Persian.” In Word Order and Scrambling. Simin Karimi (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

-  Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling, evidence from Persian. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

-  Kiparsky, P. (1998). “Partitive case and aspect.” In M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments. (pp. 265–307).. Stanford, CA.: CSLI

-  Kittila, S. (2002a). Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Ph.D Dissertation. Turku: Abo Akademis Tryckeri.

-  Kittila, S. (2002b). “Remarks on the basic transitive sentence.” Language Sciences 242, 107–130.

-  Langaker, R. W. (1991). Foundations Of cognitive Grammar. Vol, I&II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

-  Lazard, G. (1982). “Le morphème râ en Persan et les relations actancielles.” Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 73, 177–208.

-  Lazard G. (1984). “Actance variations and categories of the object.” In F. Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. (pp. 269- 292). London: Academic Press.

-  Leonetti, Manuel. (2004). “Specificity and differential object marking in Spanish.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3:75–114.

-  Malchukov, A. L. (2005). “Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition.” In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop (eds.), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case (pp. 73-117). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

-  Naess, A. (2004). “What markedness marks. The markedness problem with direct objects.” Lingua, 114, 1186- 1212.

-  Sasse, H.-J. (1984). “The pragmatics of noun incorporation in Eastern Cushitic languages.” In Plank, F. (ed). Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. (pp. 243–268). London: Academic Press.

-  Shain, C. and J. Tonhauser. (2011). “The synchrony and diachrony of differential object marking in Paraguayan Guaraní.” Language Variation and Change, 22: 321–346.

-  Slobin, D. (1979). “The role of language in language acquisition.” Invited address, 50th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association.

-  de Swart, P. (2007). Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Ph.D. dissertation:  Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

-  Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph. D. Dissertation. MIT

-  Tsunoda, T. (1985). “Remarks on transitivity.” Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 385-396.

-  Van Valin, R. D. (1991). “Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145-194.