Article published in:
Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1] 2014
► pp. 137180
References

References

Anderson, Stephen
1971The role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 6: 387–396.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1994Locative Inversion and Architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70: 72–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
(1999)  Argument Alternations, Lexical Polysemy and Thematic Roles: A Case Study . http://​www​.ling​.ohio​-state​.edu​/∼dowty​/swarm​-bees​.hdt​.norway
(2001) The Semantic Asymmetry of ‘Argument Alternations’ (and Why it Matters). In Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 44 . Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition. http://​ling​.ohio​-state​.edu​/∼dowty​/papers​/groningen​-00​.pdf
2000 ‘The Garden Swarms with Bees’ and the Fallacy of ‘Argument Alternation’. In Polysemy. Theoretical and Computational Approaches , Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock (eds), 111–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
(2005) A frame-based approach to case alternation: the swarm-class in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 475–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Haas, Florian
(2011) On the distribution of subject properties in formulaic presentationals of Germanic and Romance: A diachronic-typological approach. In Impersonal Constructions , Anna Siewierska and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), 127–167. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
2008The swarm alternation revisited. In Theory and Evidence in Semantics , Erhard Hinrichs and John Nerbonne (eds), 53–80. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2005Intranzityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai [Types of intransitive clauses: existential, locative and possessive clauses]. In Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [Studies in Grammatical Functions], Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas (eds.), 139–160. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S.
1990 Semantic structures . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kalėdaitė, Violeta
2002 Existential Sentences in English and Lithuanian. A Contrastive Study [European University Studies, Linguistics 248]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward
1976Towards a Universal Definition of ‘Subject’. In Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language, Charles N. Li and Sandra Thompson (eds.), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3): 611–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenartaitė, Kristina
2010 Argumentų raiškos alternavimas lietuvių kalboje [Alternations in Argument Realization in Lithuanian]. PhD thesis, Vilnius: Institute for the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation . Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 English Object Alternations: a Unified Account . Unpublished draft. Stanford University. http://​www​.stanford​.edu​/∼bclevin​/alt06​.pdf
and Rappaport Hovav, Malka 1995 Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface . Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and Rappaport Hovav, Malka 2005 Argument Realization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Livitz, Inna
2006 What’s in a Nominative? Implications of Russian Non-Nominative Subjects for a Crosslinguistic Approach to Subjecthood . BA thesis, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
and Akio Ogawa 2011Towards a typology of impersonal constructions. A semantic map approach. In Impersonal Constructions , Anna Siewierska and Andrej Malchukov (eds), 19–57. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V.
2007Genitiv otricanija i Nabljudatel’ v glagolax tipa zvenet’ i paxnut’ [Genitive of negation and Observer with verbs of the type zvenet’ and paxnut’ ]. http://​lexicograph​.ruslang​.ru​/TextPdf1​/paxnut​_2007​.pdf
Portero Muñoz, Carmen
2011A Functional Discourse Grammar approach to the Swarm-alternation as a case of conversion. In Morphosyntactic alternation in English: functional and cognitive perspectives , Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed), xxx–xxx. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Rachel
2002: Swarming with bees: property predication and the swarm alternation . MA thesis, University of Canterbury. www​.lacl​.canterbury​.ac​.nz​/ling​/documents​/Rowlands​_Thesis​.pdf
Salkoff, Maurice
1983Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language 59(2): 288–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & LaPolla Randy L.
1997 Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Wiemer, Björn & Vaiva Žeimantienė
2016.  In Argument Realization in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 3],  pp. 259 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 february 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.