Article published in:
Interfaces in Romance: A constraint-based approach
Edited by Gabriela Bîlbîie
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43:1] 2020
► pp. 6294
References

References

Abeillé, A. & Godard, D.
2002The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language, 78(3), 404–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Bonami, O., Godard, D. & Tseng, J.
2004The syntax of French de-N′ phrases. In S. Müller, Ed., The 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), p. 6–26, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2006The syntax of French à and de: an HPSG analysis. In P. Saint-Dizier, Ed., Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Iordăchioaia, G.
2014The psych causative alternation. Lingua, 148, 53–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F.
2013Towards a non-uniform analysis of naturally reflexive verbs. In R. Santana-LaBarge, Ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, p. 1–10, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
[ p. 89 ]
Anagnostopoulou, E.
1999On experiencers. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks & M. Stavrou, Eds., Studies in Greek Syntax, p. 67–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arad, M.
1998aPsych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 1–22.Google Scholar
1998bVP structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. PhD thesis, UCL.Google Scholar
Bach, E.
1986The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(9), 5–16.Google Scholar
Bach, E. & Partee, B. H.
1980Anaphora and semantic structure. In J. Kreiman & A. Ojede, Eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, volume 10, p. 1–28. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Badia, T.
1998Prepositions in Catalan. In S. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p. 109–149. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bar-el, L.
2005Aspectual distinctions in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L.
1988Psych-verbs and θ -theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 291–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bildhauer, F.
2007Representing Information Structure in an HPSG Grammar of Spanish. Dissertation, Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
2014Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi, Eds., The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, p. 526–555. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D.
1989An HPSG approach to Welsh. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 333–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G.
1982Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienforschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 33, 17–51.Google Scholar
Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I.
2001Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.
1995The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 184–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I.
2005Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3(4), 281–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, B.
2003Constraint-based Coanalysis. Dissertation, DFKI, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Davis, A. & Koenig, J.-P.
2000Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76(1), 56–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Miguel, E. & Fernández, M.
2000El operador aspectual se . Revista Española de Lingüística, 30, 13–43.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.
1991aThematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991bWord Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A., Jiménez-Fernández, A. & Tubino, M.
2017What’s up with dative experiencers. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected Papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Campinas, Brazil, p. 30–47.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D., Bender, E. M. & Oepen, S.
2003MRS in the LinGO Grammar Matrix: A practical user’s guide.Google Scholar
[ p. 90 ]
Franco, J.
1990Towards a typology of psych verbs, evidence from Spanish. In T. Green & S. Usziel, Eds., Proceedings of 2nd meeting of SCIL, MITWPL, number 12 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, p. 46–62, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. & Marín, R.
2015Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 32(2), 227–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
1990Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gómez Soler, I.
2013Aspectual differences with syntactic consequences: Argument structure alternations in L2 Spanish. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, T. Judy & D. Pascual y Cabo, Eds., 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA 12) Conference, p. 50–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
1993More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky, Eds., Causatives and Transitivity, p. 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B.
1977Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kiss, T.
1995Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.-P.
1999Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landau, I.
2010The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
1993English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Machicao y Priemer, A.
2010Die differentielle Objektmarkierung im Spanischen. Magister thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.Google Scholar
2014Differentielle Objektmarkierung: Spezifizität und Akkusativ im Spanischen. In A. Machicao y Priemer, A. Nolda & A. Sioupi, Eds., Zwischen Kern und Peripherie, p. 103–130. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017NP-Arguments in NPs: An Analysis of German and Spanish Noun Phrases in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.Google Scholar
2019Argumentstruktur. In S. Schierholz & P. Uzonyi, Eds., Grammatik: Syntax, number 1.2 in Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (Online). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Machicao y Priemer, A. & Fritz-Huechante, P.
2018Korean and Spanish psych-verbs: Interaction of case, theta-roles, linearization, and event structure in HPSG. In S. Müller & F. Richter, Eds., The 25th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 155–175, University of Tokyo: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2020Reflexivizing Spanish psych-verbs: Ambiguities across classes. In J. Audring, N. Koutsoukos & C. Manouilidou, Eds., The 12th Mediterranean Morphology Meetings (MMM), p. 42–53, University of Ljubljana: Pasithee.Google Scholar
Manning, C. & Sag, I.
1998Argument structure, valence, and binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21, 107–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marín, R.
2011Casi todos los predicados psicológicos son estativos. In A. Carrasco, Ed., Sobre estados y estatividad, p. 26–44. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
2015Los predicados psicológicos: Debate sobre el estado de la cuestión. In R. Marín, Ed., Los predicados psicológicos, p. 11–50. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
[ p. 91 ]
Marín, R. & McNally, L.
2005The Aktionsart of Spanish reflexive psychological verbs and their English counterparts. In E. Maier, C. Bary & J. Huitink, Eds., Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (Sinn und Bedeutung 9), p. 212–225, Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.Google Scholar
2011Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(2), 467–502. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masullo, P. J.
1992Antipassive constructions in Spanish. In P. Hirschbühler & E. F. K. Koerner, Eds., Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, p. 175–194. John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauner, G. & Koenig, J.-P.
1999Lexical encoding of event participant information. Brain and Language, 68, 178–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCready, E. & Nishida, C.
2008Reflexive intransitives in Spanish and event semantics. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow & M. Schäfer, Eds., Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, p. 223–244. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meurers, W. D.
1999Raising spirits (and assigning them case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL), 43, 173–226.Google Scholar
Miller, P. & Monachesi, P.
2010Clitic pronouns in the Romance languages. In D. Godard, Ed., Fundamental Issues in the Romance Languages, p. 53–106. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, P. & Sag, I.
1997French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monachesi, P.
1993Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian HPSG grammar. In Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Decomposing Italian clitics. In S. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p. 305–357. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005The Verbal Complex in Romance: A Case Study in Grammatical Interfaces. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S.
1999Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press, 3 edition.Google Scholar
Müller, S. & Machicao y Priemer, A.
2019Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In A. Kertész, E. Moravcsik & C. Rákosi, Eds., Current Approaches to Syntax – A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. & Wechsler, S.
2014Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1/2), 1–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T.
1990Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M.
1968Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
1970Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(2), 187–255.Google Scholar
[ p. 92 ]
Pesetsky, D.
1995Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñón, C.
1997Achievements in an event semantics. In A. Lawson & E. Cho, Eds., Proceedings of SALT 7, p. 273–296, Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I.
1994Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. J.
1996On head non-movement. In H. Bunt & A. V. Horck, Eds., Discontinuous Constituency, p. 279–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M.
1971Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A.
1999Case Assignment and the Complement/Adjunct Dichotomy: A Non-Configurational Constraint-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
2020Case. In S. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press. [To appear].Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Scholz, B.
2001On the distinction between generative-enumerative and model-theoretic syntactic frameworks. In P. de Groote, G. Morrill & C. Retoré, Eds., 4th Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), number 2099 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 17–43, Le Croisic, France: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L.
2000On stativity and causation. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky, Eds., Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, p. 417–442. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E.
1993Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 657–720.Google Scholar
Richter, F.
2000A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
2020Formal background. In S. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press. [To appear].Google Scholar
Rothstein, S.
2004Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, N.
1972Théorie Syntaxique et Syntaxe du Français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Sag, I.
1997English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 431–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. D.
1916Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Ed. by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. [Edition from 2016, published as Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, by Walter de Gruyter].Google Scholar
Schäfer, F.
2008The syntax of (anti-)causatives: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, R. & Bildhauer, F.
2012Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis, Eds., Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), p. 486–493, Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [COW-Corpus: http://​corporafromtheweb​.org].
[ p. 93 ]
Seres, D. & Espinal, M. T.
2018Psychological verbs and their arguments. Borealis, 7(1), 27–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Temme, A.
2018The peculiar nature of psych verbs and experiencer object structures. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, F.
2015Predicative Constructions: From the Fregean to a Montagovian Treatment. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & LaPolla, R. J.
1997Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Number 10 in Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanhoe, H.
2004Aspectos de la sintaxis de los verbos psicológicos en español: un análisis léxico funcional. Dissertations in Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vogel, C. & Villada, B. N.
1999An HPSG Analysis of Grammatical Relations, Syntactic Valency and Semantic Argument Structure in Spanish Psychological Predicates and other Instances of Quirky Case and Agreement. Technical report, Computational Linguistics Laboratory, Trinity College.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. M.
1991Argument Structure and Linking. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Whitley, M. S.
1995Gustar and other psych verbs: A problem in transitivity. Hispania, 78(3), 573–585. CrossrefGoogle Scholar