Article published in:
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 271326
References

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian
2006The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 187–211. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2007Frequency of Usage and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2010The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’constructions. A case study of English, German, French, and Dutch. In Benefactives and Malefactives. Case Studies and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 92], Fernando Zúňiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds), 219–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1990Possible verbs and event structure. In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization, Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2003Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa
1997Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier Gilles & Turner, Mark
2002The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4): 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel
2007Eine Implikatur konventioneller Art: Der Dativus Ethicus. Linguistische Berichte 211: 277–308.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Causatives and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds) 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991Grammaticalization. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997Possession: Cognitive Forces, Sources, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hens, Gregor
1997Constructional semantics in German: The dative of inaction. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9(2): 191–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, Dalina
2004De-agentivised causers or non-active causative predications’ predications. In The Pre-conference Proceedings of the Workshop “Demoting the Agent: Passive and Other Voice-related Phenomena ”. University of Oslo, 59–66.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2011On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848–893. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul
2005Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4], Mirjam Fried & Hans Boas (eds), 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cited after the online version available at: http://​www​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~kay​/ASCs​.pdf DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimps, Ditte & Davidse, Kristin
2008Illocutionary force and conduciveness in imperative constant polarity tag questions: A typology. Text & Talk 28(6): 699–722. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2005Recipient-prominence vs beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2): 269–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Haspelmath, Martin
1998Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues d’Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Langues d’Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, EUROTYP 20–2], Jacque Feuillet (ed.), 525–606. Berlin: De Gruyter. Cited after the online version available at: http://​www​.eva​.mpg​.de​/lingua​/staff​/haspelmath​/pdf​/Possext1998​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
2000Grammar and Conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka
1995Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo
2002Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics 13(1): 1–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2011Silent possessive PPs in English Double Object (+Particle) Constructions. Quoted after the online version available at: http://​www2​.unine​.ch​/andrew​.mcintyre​/page​-300​.htm
McKoon, Gail & Macfarland, Talke
2000Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language 76(4): 833–858. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mitkovska, Liljana
2011Competition between nominal possessive constructions and the possessive Dative in Macedonian. In The Grammar of Possessivity in South Slavic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Nomachi Motoki (ed.), 83–109. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Nava, Fernando & Maldonado, Ricardo
2005Basic voice patterns in Tarascan (P’orhepecha). In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 461–478. Stanford CA: CSLI. Cited after the online version available at: http://​ricardomaldonado​.weebly​.com​/uploads​/2​/7​/6​/3​/2763410​/nava​_maldonado​.pdfGoogle Scholar
O’ Connor, Mary Catherine
2007External possession and utterance interpretation: A crosslinguistic exploration. Linguistics 45(3): 577–613.Google Scholar
Payne Doris L. & Barshi, Immanuel
(eds) 1999. External Possession Typological Studies in Language 39 Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Raineri, Sophie & Evola, Vito
2008A Construction Grammar Analysis of the Empathetic Dative Construction in French and Italian. Ms.
Šarić, Ljiljana
2002On the semantics of the dative of possession in the Slavic languages: An analysis on the basis of Russian, Polish, Croatian/Serbian and Slovenian examples. Glossos 3. Slavic and East European Language Resource Center, Duke University. Cited after the online version available at: http://​folk​.uio​.no​/kjetilrh​/slav4114​/2011​-02​-11​/saric​_2002​_marked​-up​.pdf
Schäfer, Florian
2007On the Nature of Anticausative Morphology: External Arguments in Change-of State Contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart. Cited after the online version at: http://​elib​.unistuttgart​.de​/opus​/volltexte​/2007​/3307​/pdf​/diss​_schaefer​_version​_3​.pdf
Smith, Carlota S.
1970‘Jespersen’s ‘move and change’ class and causative verbs in English. In Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar Polomé & Werner Winter (eds), 101–110. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.
2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David
1980Ethical datives and possessor omission sí, possessor ascension no! Workpapers of the SIL 24: 97–141. University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & Wilkins, David P.
1996The case for ‘effector’: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Grammatical Constructions, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

TOYOTA, JUNICHI
2017. <i>Perspectives on Semantic Roles</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:2  pp. 567 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 june 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.