Chapter published in:
Studies in Historical Ibero-Romance Morpho-Syntax
Edited by Miriam Bouzouita, Ioanna Sitaridou and Enrique Pato
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 16] 2018
► pp. 123148
References

References

Allen, C. L.
(1995) Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bardðal, J.
(2009) The development of case in Germanic. In J. Bardðal & S. L. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 123–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, B.
(2000) Archaic syntax in Indo-European. The spread of transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, K. L., & Bruce, L. P.
(2010) Emotions in the Alamblak lexicon. In K. A. McElhanon & G. Reesink (Eds.), A Mosaic of languages and cultures: Studies celebrating the career of Karl J. Franklin (pp. 38–59). Dallas, TX: SIL e-books.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Pagliuca, W.
(1987) The Evolution of Future Meaning. In A. Giacolone Ramat, O. Carruba & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 109–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W.
(1994) The evolution of grammar. tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calderón Campos, M.
(2018) Intersubjectification and textual emphasis in the use of definite article + proper name in Spanish. In M. Bouzouita, I. Sitaridou & E. Pato (Eds.), Studies in historical Ibero-Romance morpho-syntax (pp. 75–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (in this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., Harbert, W., Hermon, G., & Sridhar, S. N.
(1980) The acquisition of subjecthood. Language, 56, 719–743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corominas, J., & Pascual, J. A.
(1981) Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(1997) Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(1991) A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S.
(2004) The diachronic relationship between quirky subjects and Stylistic Fronting. In P. Bhaskararao & K. Venkata Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative subjects (Vol. 1; pp. 192–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C., & Campbell, L.
(1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2001) Non canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 53–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B.
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 1; pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, B. I.
(1999) Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: A cross-linguistic study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S.
(1993) The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., & Kaburaki, E.
(1977) Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 627–672.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Ch. T.
(1889) Latin dictionary for schools. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Maldonado, R.
(1999) A media voz. Problemas conceptuales del clítico se. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Melis, Ch
(1998) Sobre la historia sintáctica de gustar . In C. García Turza, F. González Bachiller & J. J. Mangado Martínez (Eds.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española, (Vol. 2; pp. 295–305). Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja.Google Scholar
(1999) Los verbos placer y pesar en la Edad Media: la expresión ‘impersonal’ de las emociones. In F. Colombo Airoldi (Ed.), El Centro de Lingüística Hispánica y la lengua española (pp. 87–105). Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
(2011) Del placer al gusto. Cambio semántico y continuidad sintáctica. Paper presented at the II Coloquio Internacional Lenguas y Culturas Coloniales (5–9 septiembre, 2011). Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Melis, Ch., & Flores, M.
(2013) On the historical expansion of non-canonically marked ‘subjects’ in Spanish. In I. A. Seržant & L. I. Kulikov (Eds), Diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J., & Perlmutter, D. M.
(2000) What does it take to be a dative subject? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 373–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Næss, A.
(2007) Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, M.
(2001) Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and properties. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 1–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, M.
(2007) Grammar in use across time and space. Deconstructing the Japanese ‘dative subject’ construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seefranz-Montag, A. von
(1984) Subjectless constructions and syntactic change. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical syntax (pp. 521–553). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. A.
(2002) To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 691–724. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. III; pp. 57–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Bauman, J.
(2018) Allative to purposive grammaticalization: A quantitative story of Spanish para . In M. Bouzouita, I. Sitaridou & E. Pato (Eds.), Studies in historical Ibero-Romance morpho-syntax (pp. 195–221). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (in this volume) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, V., & Rivas, E.
(2007) Un análisis construccionista de la diacronía de gustar . In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, C. Inchaurralde & J. Sánchez (Eds.), Language, mind and the lexicon (pp. 143–164). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1992) Semantics, culture, and cognition. Universal human concepts in culture specific configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corpus

Real Academia Española
Corpus diacrónico del español (corde) . Madrid: RAE. http://​www​.rae​.es
Corpus de referencia del español actual (CREA). Madrid: RAE. http://​www​.rae​.es