1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Silent Instruments

Silent Instruments

Syntax, semantics, and acquisition of the instrumental role in Italian

image of Silent Instruments
USD
Buy:$176.00 + Taxes

This book offers the first systematic investigation of the instrumental role across syntax, semantics, and language acquisition. Focusing primarily on Italian within a comparative perspective, the book addresses a long-standing puzzle: why Instruments can be syntactically omitted even when they remain semantically present.Combining theoretical analysis with experimental evidence, corpus data, and innovative methodologies, the study redefines the status of Instruments with respect to the argument-adjunct distinction and introduces a new, principled account of their syntactic omission based on semantic recoverability. It proposes a refined typology of Instruments, grounded in verb meaning and contextual factors, and tests its predictions through behavioral experiments and large-scale corpus analyses.The book also breaks new ground in acquisition research, presenting the first experimental investigation of how Italian-speaking children acquire Instruments. The results reveal a striking dissociation between early syntactic mastery and the slower development of Instrument semantic recoverability, shedding new light on the acquisition of syntactically optional elements.By integrating syntax, semantics, and acquisition, Silent Instruments provides a robust and empirically grounded framework that is readily applicable to cross-linguistic research and to other phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface. It will be of interest to linguists working on argument structure, optionality, language acquisition, and experimental and corpus-based approaches to grammar.

References

  1. Ackema, P.
    (2015) Arguments and Adjuncts. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook (pp. 246–273). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110377408.246
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377408.246 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F.
    (2006) Instrument Subjects are Agents or Causers. In D. Baumer , D. Montero & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 40–48). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfano, I. , Cutugno, F. , De Rosa, A. , Iacobini, C. , Savy, R. & Voghera, M.
    (2014) VOLIP: a corpus of spoken Italian and a virtuous example of reuse of linguistic resources. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14) (pp. 3897–3901). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Allerton, D. J.
    (1975) Deletion and Proform Reduction. Journal of Linguistics, 11 (2), 213–237. 10.1017/S0022226700004540
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700004540 [Google Scholar]
  5. Altmann, G. T. M.
    (1999) Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (1), 124–145. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2640
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2640 [Google Scholar]
  6. Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y.
    (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73 , 247–264. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00059‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ambridge, B. , Pine, J. M. , Rowland, C. F. & Young, C. R.
    (2008) The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106 (1), 87–129. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  8. Antelmi, D.
    (1997) La prima grammatica dell’italiano. Indagine longitudinale sull’acquisizione della morfosintassi italiana. Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Arad, M.
    (2003) Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21 , 737–778. 10.1023/A:1025533719905
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025533719905 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005) Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ariel, M.
    (1990) Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Arka, W. I.
    (2014) Locative-related Roles and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery, 12 (2), 56–84. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.446
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.446 [Google Scholar]
  13. Arnold, J. E.
    (2008) Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23 (4), 495–527. 10.1080/01690960801920099
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801920099 [Google Scholar]
  14. Asher, N. & Pustejovsky, J.
    (2006) A Type Composition Logic for Generative Lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6 , 1–38. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5189‑7_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Aylett, M. & Turk, A.
    (2004) The Smooth Signal Hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47 (1), 31–56. 10.1177/00238309040470010201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bánhidi, Z. J. & Szabó, D.
    (1975) Lehrbuch der ungarischen Sprache. Hueber.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Baker, C. L.
    (1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10 (4), 533–581.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Baker, M. C.
    (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Baker, M. C. , Johnson, K. & Roberts, I.
    (1989) Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (2), 219–251. 10.4324/9781315310572‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315310572-8 [Google Scholar]
  20. Barbu, R.-M.
    (2015) Verbs and Participants: Nonlinguists’ intuitions. MA Thesis. Carleton University. 10.22215/etd/2015‑10810
     https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2015-10810 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2020) On the Psycholinguistic of Argumenthood. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carlton University. 10.22215/etd/2020‑14146
     https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2020-14146
  22. Barbu, R.-M. & Toivonen, I.
    (2016) Arguments and Adjuncts: at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Florida Linguistics Papers, 3 , 13–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Baroni, M. , Bernardini, S. , Ferraresi, A. & Zanchetta, E.
    (2009) The WaCky Wide Web: A Collection of Very Large Linguistically Processed Web-Crawled Corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43 (3), 209–226. 10.1007/s10579‑009‑9081‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 [Google Scholar]
  24. Bates, E. , Dale, P. S. & Thal, D.
    (1994) Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Basil Blackwell. 10.1111/b.9780631203124.1996.00005.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631203124.1996.00005.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Belletti, A.
    (1999) Italian/Romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In H. Riemsdijk (Ed.), 5 Clitics in the Languages of Europe: Volume 5/Part 1: Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 543–580). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110804010.543
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.543 [Google Scholar]
  26. Berretta, M.
    (1985a) Ci vs. gli: un microsistema in crisi?In A. Franchi de Bellis & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso: teorie e applicazioni descrittive. Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 117–133). Bulzoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (1985b) I pronomi clitici nell’italiano parlato. In G. Holtus , & E. Radtke (Eds.), Gesprochenes Italienisch in Geschichte un Gegenwart (pp. 185–224). Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1989) Tracce di coniugazione oggettiva in italiano. In F. Foresti , E. Rizzi & P. Benedini (Eds.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze. Atti del XX Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 125–150). Bulzoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Berruto, G.
    (1985) Dislocazione a sinistra e grammatica dell’italiano parlato. In A. Franchi de Bellis & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso: teorie e applicazioni descrittive. Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 59–82). Bulzoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo (2nd ed.). Carocci.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Berwick, R. C.
    (1986) The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Bloom, L.
    (1973) One Word at a Time: The Use of Single Word Utterances Before Syntax. Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Bloom, L. , Lightbown, P. , Hood, L. , Bowerman, M. , Maratsos, M. & Maratsos, M. P.
    (1975) Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40 (2), 1–97. 10.2307/1165986
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1165986 [Google Scholar]
  34. Bojanowski, P. , Grave, E. , Joulin, A. & Mikolov, T.
    (2017) Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2017, 5, 135–146. 10.1162/tacl_a_00051
     https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00051 [Google Scholar]
  35. Boland, J. E.
    (2005) Visual Arguments. Cognition, 95 (3), 237–274. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Boland, J. E. & Blodgett, A.
    (2006) Argument Status and PP-Attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35 (5), 385–403. 10.1007/s10936‑006‑9021‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9021-z [Google Scholar]
  37. Boland, J. E. & Boehm-Jernigan, H.
    (1998) Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (4), 684–719. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2591
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2591 [Google Scholar]
  38. Boland, J. E. , Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M.
    (1990) Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29 (4), 413–432. 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90064‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90064-7 [Google Scholar]
  39. Boland, J. E. , Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. & Carlson, G. N.
    (1995) Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34 (6), 774–806. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1034
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1034 [Google Scholar]
  40. Borer, H.
    (1999) The form, the forming, and the formation of nominals. Paper presented at the2nd Mediterranean Morphology Meeting.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Bortolini, U. , Arfé, B. , Caselli, M. C. , & Leonard, L. B.
    (2002) Specific Language Impairment in Italian: the first steps in the search for a clinical marker. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37 (2), 77–93. 10.1080/13682820110116758
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820110116758 [Google Scholar]
  42. Bortolini, U. , Arfé, B. , Caselli, M. C. , Degasperi, L. , Deevy, P. & Leonard, L. B.
    (2006) Clinical markers for Specific Language Impairment in Italian: The contribution of clitics and non-word repetition. International Journal of Language & Communication disorders, 41 (6), 695 — 712. 10.1080/13682820600570831
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820600570831 [Google Scholar]
  43. Bottari, P. , Cipriani, P. , Chilosi, A. M. & Pfanner, L.
    (2001) The Italian determiner system in normal acquisition, specific language impairment, and childhood aphasia. Brain and Language, 77 (3), 283–293. 10.1006/brln.2000.2402
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2402 [Google Scholar]
  44. Bowerman, M.
    (1987) Commentary: Mechanisms of language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 438–462). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (1988) The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar?In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining Language Universals (pp. 73–101). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Bowerman, M. & Brown, P.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure. Implications for Learnability. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Braine, M. D. S.
    (1971) On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Ontogenesis of Grammar: A Theoretical Symposium (pp. 153–186). New York Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Brennan, S. E. & Hanna, J. E.
    (2009) Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1 , 274–291. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2009.01019.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Bresnan, J.
    (Ed.) (1982) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Bresnan, J. , Asudeh, A. , Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S.
    (2015) Lexical-Functional Syntax (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119105664
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119105664 [Google Scholar]
  51. Britt, M. A.
    (1994) The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 251–283. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1013
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1013 [Google Scholar]
  52. Brown, R.
    (1957) Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55 (1), 1–5. 10.1037/h0041199
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041199 [Google Scholar]
  53. Brown, R. & Hanlon, C.
    (1970) Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In John R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 11–53). Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Brunetti, L. , De Kuthy, K. & Riester, A.
    (2021) The Information-Structural Status of Adjuncts: A Question-under-Discussion-Based Approach. Discours, 28 , 1–39. 10.4000/discours.11454
     https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.11454 [Google Scholar]
  55. Brunson, B. A.
    (1992) Thematic discontinuity. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto.
  56. Brunson, B. A.
    (1993) The Instrumental role: argument or adjunct?Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 12 (1), 13–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Büring, D.
    (2008) What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of Focus?In S. Berson , A. Bratkievich , D. Bruhn , A. Campbell , R. Escamilla , A. Giovine , L. Newbold , M. Perez , M. Piqueras-Brunet & R. Rhomieux (Eds.), BLS 34 — Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 403–423). Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v34i1.3586
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v34i1.3586 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2016) Intonation and Meaning. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226269.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Cappelli, G.
    (2022) Implicit indefinite objects at the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: a probabilistic model of acceptability judgments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Scuola Normale Superiore.
  60. Cappelli, G. & Lenci, A.
    (2020) PISA: A measure of Preference In Selection of Arguments to model verb argument recoverability. In I. Gurevych , M. Apidianaki & M. Faruqui (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (pp. 131–136). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Caprin, C. & Guasti, M. T.
    (2009) The acquisition of morphosyntax in Italian: A cross-sectional study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30 (1), 23–52. 10.1017/S0142716408090024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408090024 [Google Scholar]
  62. Cardinaletti, A.
    (2008) On different types of clitic clusters. In C. De Cat & K. Demuth (Eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure (pp. 41–82). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.131.06car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.131.06car [Google Scholar]
  63. (2010) Morphologically complex clitic pronouns and spurious se once again. In V. Torrens , L. Escobar , A. Gavarró & J. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Movement and Clitics: Adult and Child Grammar (pp. 238–259). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (2015) 19. Syntactic Effects Of Cliticization. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, volume 1 (pp. 595 — 653). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110377408.595
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377408.595 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2016) Sui limiti dei pronomi clitici: inventario ed estrazione. In A. Ledgeway , M. Cennamo & G. Mensching (Eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes. Section 4: Syntaxe, (pp. 49–62). ATILF/SLR.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. (2019) Cliticization as Extraction: The Big DP Hypothesis Revisited. REVISTA DA ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE LINGUÍSTICA, 5 , 1–16. 10.26334/2183‑9077/rapln5ano2019a1
     https://doi.org/10.26334/2183-9077/rapln5ano2019a1 [Google Scholar]
  67. Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.
    (1999) The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In In H. Riemsdijk (Ed.), 5 Clitics in the Languages of Europe: Volume 5/Part 1: Clitics in the Languages of Europe (33–80). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804010.33
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804010.33 [Google Scholar]
  68. Cardinaletti, A. , Cerutti, S. & Volpato, F.
    (2021) On the acquisition of third person dative clitic pronouns in Italian. Lingue e linguaggio, 2 , 311–341.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Carlson, G. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (1988) Thematic Roles and Language Comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations (pp. 263–288). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004373211_015
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_015 [Google Scholar]
  70. Carnie, A.
    (2002) Syntax: a generative introduction. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Caselli, M. C. , Leonard, L. B. , Volterra, V. & Campagnoli, M. G.
    (1993) Toward mastery of Italian morphology: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Child Language, 20 (2), 377–393. 10.1017/S0305000900008333
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008333 [Google Scholar]
  72. Caselli, M. C. , Bates, E. , Casadio, P. , Fenson, J. , Fenson, L. , Sanderl, L. & Weir, J.
    (1995) A cross-linguistic study of early lexical development. Cognitive Development, 10 (2), 159–199. 10.1016/0885‑2014(95)90008‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(95)90008-X [Google Scholar]
  73. Caselli, M. C. , Bello, A. , Rinaldi, P. , Stefanini, S. & Pasqualetti, P.
    (2007a) Il primo vocabolario del bambino: gesti, parole e frasi. Valori di riferimento fra 8 e 36 mesi delle Forme complete e delle Forme brevi del questionario MacArthur-Bates CDI. Franco Angeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Caselli, M. C. , Pasqualetti, P. & Stefanini, S.
    (2007b) Parole e frasi nel “Primo vocabolario del bambino”. Nuovi dati normativi fra 18 e 36 mesi e Forma breve del questionario. Franco Angeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Cennamo, M.
    (2017) Object Omission and the Semantics of Predicates in Italian in a Comparative Perspective. In L. Hellan , A. L. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, Volume 237 (pp. 252–273). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.237.08cen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.08cen [Google Scholar]
  76. Cerruti, M. & Ballarè, S.
    (2021) ParlaTO: corpus del parlato di Torino. Bollettino dell’Atlante Linguistico Italiano (BALI), 44 , 171–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Chafe, W. L.
    (1970) Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Chiari, I. & De Mauro, T.
    (2012) The new basic vocabulary of Italian: problems and methods. Statistica Applicata — Italian Journal of Applied Statistics, 22 (1), 21–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Cinque, G.
    (1990) Types of A’ Dependencies. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Choi, H.-W.
    (2010) The Distinction of Arguments and Adjuncts as a Gradient Notion. Language and Information, 14 (1), 26–48. 10.29403/LI.14.1.2
     https://doi.org/10.29403/LI.14.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  82. Chomsky, N.
    (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. (1986) Knowledge of language. Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H.
    (1977) Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8 (3), 425–504.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Cipriani, P. , Chilosi, A. M. , Bottari, P. & Pfanner, L.
    (1993) L’acquisizione della morfo-sintassi in italiano — Fasi e processi. Unipress.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Cipriani, P. , Chilosi, A. , Pfanner, L. , Villani, S. & Bottari, P.
    (2002) Il ritardo del linguaggio in età precoce: profili evolutivi ed indici di rischio. In M. C. Caselli & O. Capirci (Eds.), Indici di rischio nel primo sviluppo del linguaggio. Ricerca, clinica, educazione (pp. 377–393). Franco Angeli.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Cipriani, P. , Pfanner, L. , Chilosi, A. M. , Cittadoni, L. , Ciuti, A. , Maccari, A. , Pantano, N. , Poli, P. , Sarno, S. , Bottari, P. , Cappelli, G. , Colombo, C. & Veneziano, E.
    (1989) Protocolli diagnostici e terapeutici nello sviluppo e nella patologia del linguaggio (1/84 Italian Ministry of Health). Stella Maris Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Clark, H. H. & Murphy, G. L.
    (1982) Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in Psychology, 9 , 287–299. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60059‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60059-5 [Google Scholar]
  90. Cohen Priva, U.
    (2015) Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology, 6 (2), 243–278. 10.1515/lp‑2015‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  91. Conklin, K. , Koenig, J.-P. & Mauner, G.
    (2004) The role of specificity in the lexical encoding of participants. Brain Language, 90 (1–3), 221–230. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00435‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00435-8 [Google Scholar]
  92. Copestake, A.
    (1992) The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Sussex.
  93. Copestake, A. , Sanfilippo, A. , Briscoe, T. & de Paiva, V.
    (1993) The ACQUILEX LKB: an introduction. In T. Briscoe , A. Copestake & V. de Paiva (Eds.), Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon (pp. 148–163). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cbo9780511663642.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511663642.009 [Google Scholar]
  94. Corbett, G. G.
    (2005) The canonical approach in typology*. In Z. Frajzyngier , A. Hodges & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories (pp. 25–49). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.72.03cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.03cor [Google Scholar]
  95. Corbett, G. G.
    (2007) Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language, 83 (1), 8–42. 10.1353/lan.2007.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0006 [Google Scholar]
  96. Cote, S. A.
    (1996) Grammatical and Discourse Properties of Null Arguments in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
  97. Cotter, C. A.
    (1984) Inferring indirect objects in sentences: Some implications for the semantics of verbs. Language and Speech, 27 , 25–45. 10.1177/002383098402700103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098402700103 [Google Scholar]
  98. Cowper, E. A. A.
    (1992) A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226160221.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226160221.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  99. Crocetti, P. , Fancelli, S. , Colpizzi, I. , Suozzi, A. , Crocetti, E. , Borgogni, E. & Gagliardi, G.
    (2021) T-PEC: a novel test for the elicited production of clitic pronouns in Italian. Preliminary data. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 35 (7), 1–27. 10.1080/02699206.2020.1818129
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2020.1818129 [Google Scholar]
  100. Croft, W.
    (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  102. Croft, W. & Cruse, d. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  103. Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y.
    (2004) Null Objects in French and English. In J. Auger , J. C. Clements & B. Vance (Eds.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 258 (pp. 121–138). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.258.07cum
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.258.07cum [Google Scholar]
  104. D’Odorico, L. & S. Carubbi
    (2003) Prosodic characteristics of early multi-word utterances in Italian Children. First Language, 23 (1), 97–116. 10.1177/0142723703023001005
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723703023001005 [Google Scholar]
  105. D’odorico, L. , Carubbi, S. , Salerni, N. & Calvo, V.
    (2001) Vocabulary development in Italian children: a longitudinal evaluation of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Journal of Child Language, 28 (2), 351–372. 10.1017/S0305000901004676
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000901004676 [Google Scholar]
  106. Dalrymple, M.
    (2001) Lexical Functional Grammar. Academic Press. 10.1163/9781849500104
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849500104 [Google Scholar]
  107. Davidson, D.
    (1967) The logical form of action sentences. Essays on actions and events, 5 , 105–148. 10.2307/jj.13027259.6
     https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.13027259.6 [Google Scholar]
  108. Davis, A. R. & Koenig, J.-P.
    (2000) The KEY to lexical semantics. Paper presented at the7th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. De Mauro, T.
    (1980) Guida all’uso delle parole: parlare e scrivere semplice e preciso per capire e farsi capire. Editori Riuniti.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. (2000) Grande dizionario italiano dell’uso. UTET.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. (2016) dizionario.internazionale.it/nuovovocabolariodibase.
  112. DeArmond, R. C. & N. Hedberg
    (1998) On Complements and Adjuncts. Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  113. (2000) The Configuration of Primary and Secondary Complements. Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Delage, H. , Durrleman, S. & Frauenfelder, U. H.
    (2016) Disentangling sources of difficulty associated with the acquisition of accusative clitics in French. Lingua, 180 (1), 1–24. 10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  115. Devescovi, A. , Caselli, M. C. , Ossella, T. & Alviggi, F.
    (1992) Strumenti di indagine sulle prime fasi dello sviluppo linguistico: risultati di una prova di ripetizione di frasi con bambini fra i due e i tre anni e mezzo. Rassegna di psicologia, 2 : 29–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Devescovi, A. & A. Marano
    (2013) Lo sviluppo del lessico. In S. D’Amico & A. Devescovi (Eds.), Psicologia dello sviluppo del linguaggio (pp. 139–171). Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Devescovi, A. & Pizzuto, P.
    (1995) Lo sviluppo grammaticale. In G. Sabbadini (Ed.), Manuale di neuropsicologia dell’età evolutiva. Zanichelli.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Don, J.
    (2005) Roots, Deverbal Nouns and Denominal Verbs. In G. Booij , E. Guevara , A. Ralli , S. C. Sgroi & S. Scalise (Eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Tipology. On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4), 91–104.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Dosher, B. A. & Corbett, A. T.
    (1982) Instrument inferences and verb schemata. Memory & Cognition, 10 (6), 531–539. 10.3758/BF03202435
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202435 [Google Scholar]
  120. Dowty, D. R.
    (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9473‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7 [Google Scholar]
  121. (1982) Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In P. Jacobson & G. K. Pullum (Eds), The nature of syntactic representations (pp. 79 — 130). Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑7707‑5_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  122. (1989) On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. In G. Chierchia , B. H. Partee & R. Turner (Eds). Properties, types, and meaning (pp. 69–129). Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2723‑0_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  123. (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67 (3), 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  124. (1994) Adjunct-to-argument reanalysis in a model of grammar growth. Paper presented at the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL ’94), University of South Carolina.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. (2003) The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar. In E. Lang , C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying Adjuncts (pp. 33–66). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110894646.33
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894646.33 [Google Scholar]
  126. Ernst, T.
    (1994) Conditions on Chinese A-not-A Questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3 , 261–264. 10.1007/BF01733065
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733065 [Google Scholar]
  127. (1996) Chinese Evidence for Semi-Arguments. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 26 , 117–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. (2009) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Fabricius-Hansen, C.
    (2007) On manners and circumstances. Interpreting utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces.Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim (pp. 39–50). Novus Forlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Haug, D. H.
    (Eds.) (2012a) Big events, small clauses: the grammar of elaboration. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110285864
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285864 [Google Scholar]
  131. Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Haug, D. T.
    (2012b) Co-eventive adjuncts: main issues and clarifications. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. T. Haug (Eds.), Big events, small clauses: the grammar of elaboration (pp. 23–54). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110285864.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285864.21 [Google Scholar]
  132. Fabrizio, C.
    (2013) The meaning of a noun converted into a verb. A semantic exploration on Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 25 (2), 175–219.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Farrell, P.
    (2005) Grammatical relations. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199264018.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199264018.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  134. Fellbaum, C. & Kegl, J.
    (1989) Taxonomic structures and cross-category linking in the lexicon. In K. DeJong & Y. No (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL ‘93), 93–104. Ohio State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Ferretti, T. R. , McRae, T. & Hatherell, A.
    (2001) Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (4), 516–547. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2728
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2728 [Google Scholar]
  136. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–87). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1969) Types of Lexical Information. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Foundations of Language, vol.10, pp.109–137. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑1707‑7_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1707-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  138. (1986) Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12 , 95–107. 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866 [Google Scholar]
  139. Fisher, C. , Gertner, Y. , Scott, R. M. & Yuan, S.
    (2010) Syntactic bootstrapping. Wires Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (2), 143–149. 10.1002/wcs.17
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.17 [Google Scholar]
  140. Fisher, C. , Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R.
    (1991) On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive psychology, 23 (3), 331–392. 10.1016/0010‑0285(91)90013‑E
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90013-E [Google Scholar]
  141. Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. Jr.
    (1984) Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Forker, D.
    (2014) A Canonical Approach to the Argument/Adjunct Distinction. Linguistic Discovery, 12 (2), 27–40. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.444
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.444 [Google Scholar]
  143. Frank, A. F. , & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2008) Speaking Rationally: Uniform Information Density as an Optimal Strategy for Language Production. The 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 939–944.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Freudenthal, D. , Ramscar, M. , Leonard, L. B. and Pine, J. M.
    (2021) Simulating the Acquisition of Verb Inflection in Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder in English and Spanish. Cognitive Science, 45 , e12945. 10.1111/cogs.12945
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12945 [Google Scholar]
  145. García-Velasco, D. & Portero Muñoz, C.
    (2002) Understood Objects in Functional Grammar. Working papers in functional grammar, 76 , 1–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Garrod, S. & Sanford, A. J.
    (1981) Bridging inferences and the extended domain of reference. In J. Long and A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 331–346). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Gavarrò, A. , Torrens, V. & Wexler, K.
    (2010) Object clitic omission: two language types. Language acquisition, 17 (4), 192–219. 10.1080/10489223.2010.509262
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2010.509262 [Google Scholar]
  148. Gerken, L. A.
    (1996) Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language, 72 (4), 683–712. 10.2307/416099
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416099 [Google Scholar]
  149. Givón, T.
    (1983) Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  150. Glass, L.
    (2014) What Does It Mean for an Implicit Object to Be Recoverable?. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 20 (1), 121–130.
     [Google Scholar]
  151. (2020) Verbs Describing Routines Facilitate Object Omission in English. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 5 (1), 44–58. 10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4663
     https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4663 [Google Scholar]
  152. Gleitman, L. R.
    (1990) The structural sources of verb meaning. Language Acquisition, 1 (1), 3–55. 10.1207/s15327817la0101_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_2 [Google Scholar]
  153. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2001) Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences, 23 (4–5), 503–524. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00034‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00034-6 [Google Scholar]
  154. (2002) Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 , 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  155. Goldberg, A. E. , Casenhiser, D. M. & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive linguistics 15 (3), 289–316. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  156. Golinkoff, R. M. , Shuff-Bailey, M. , Olguin, R. & Ruan, W.
    (1995) Young children extend novel words at the basic level: Evidence for the principle of categorical scope. Developmental Psychology, 31 (3), 494–507. 10.1037/0012‑1649.31.3.494
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.3.494 [Google Scholar]
  157. Goria, E. & Mauri, C.
    (2018) Il corpus KIParla: una nuova risorsa per lo studio dell’italiano parlato. In F. Masini & F. Tamburini (Eds.), CLUB Working Papers in Linguistics, 2 , 96–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Grave, E. , Bojanowski, P. , Gupta, P. , Joulin, A. & Mikolov, T.
    (2018) Learning Word Vectors for 157 Languages. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  160. Grimes, J. E.
    (1965) The Thread of Discourse. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  161. Grimshaw, J.
    (1990) Argument structure. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Gropen, J. , Pinker, S. , Hollander, M. & Goldberg, R.
    (1991) Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41 (1), 153–195. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90035‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90035-3 [Google Scholar]
  163. Gruber, J. S.
    (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  164. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. North Holland Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. Grüter, T.
    (2006) Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French. Ph.D. Dissertation. McGill University.
  166. Guasti, M. T.
    (2002) Language Acquisition. The growth of grammar. Bradford books.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. Guasti, M. T. , Palma, S. , Genovese, E. , Stagi, P. , Saladini, G. & Arosio, F.
    (2016) The production of direct object clitics in pre-school– and primary school–aged children with specific language impairments. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 30 (9), 663–678. 10.3109/02699206.2016.1173100
     https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2016.1173100 [Google Scholar]
  168. Gysel, van J.
    (2010) La semantica della particella ci nell’italiano parlato informale: uno studio empirico, M.A. Thesis. Unversiteit Gent.
     [Google Scholar]
  169. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J.
    (1993) On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–109). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. (1997) On the complex nature of simple predicators. In A. Alsina , J. Bresnan & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates (pp. 29–56). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  171. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1970) Language Structure and Language Function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140–165). Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  172. Harris, Z. S.
    (1954) Distributional structure. Word, 10 (2–3), 146–162. 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 [Google Scholar]
  173. Haspelmath, M.
    (2010) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86 (3), 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  174. (2014) Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts. Linguistic Discovery, 12 (2), 3–11. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.442
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.442 [Google Scholar]
  175. Hedberg, N. & DeArmond, R. C.
    (1999) On Nominal Complements and Adjuncts. Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistics Society Meeting. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  176. Heller, D. , Gorman, K. S. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2012) To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4 (2), 290–305. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2012.01182.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01182.x [Google Scholar]
  177. Hickman, L. , Taylor, J. & Raskin, V.
    (2016) Direct Object Omission as a Sign of Conceptual Defaultness. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, 516–521.
     [Google Scholar]
  178. Hole, D.
    (2015) Arguments and Adjuncts. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, Volume 2 (pp. 1284 — 1320). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110363708‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110363708-014 [Google Scholar]
  179. Holisky, D. A.
    (1987) The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua, 71 (1–4), 103–132. 10.1016/0024‑3841(87)90069‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(87)90069-6 [Google Scholar]
  180. Horn, L.
    (1989) A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  181. Iacobini, C.
    (2004) Parasintesi. In M. Grossman & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano (pp. 165 — 183). Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110934410.165
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110934410.165 [Google Scholar]
  182. Ingham, R.
    (1993) Input and Learnability: Direct-Object Omissibility in English. Language Acquisition, 3 (2), 95–120. 10.1207/s15327817la0302_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0302_1 [Google Scholar]
  183. Inman, M. V.
    (1993) Semantics and Pragmatics of Colloquial Sinhala Involitive Verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.
  184. Irani, A.
    (2019) Learning From Positive Evidence: The Acquisition Of Verb Argument Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
  185. Isaacs, E. A. & Clark, H. H.
    (1987) References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116 (1), 26–37. 10.1037/0096‑3445.116.1.26
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.26 [Google Scholar]
  186. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative Alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/cal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  187. Jackendoff, R.
    (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  188. (1977) X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  189. (1983) Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  190. (1987) The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 1 , 369–411.
     [Google Scholar]
  191. (1990) Semantic structures. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  192. Jaeger, T. F.
    (2010) Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61 (1), 23–62. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  193. Janssen, T. M. V. , Partee, B.
    (1997) Compositionality. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 417–473). MIT Press. 10.1016/B978‑044481714‑3/50011‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50011-4 [Google Scholar]
  194. Jezek, E.
    (2017) Generative Lexicon Theory and Lexicography. In P. Hanks & G.-M. De Schryver (Eds.), International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography (p. 1–21). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑45369‑4_13‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45369-4_13-1 [Google Scholar]
  195. (2018) Partecipanti impliciti nella struttura argomentale dei verbi. In S. Dallabrida & P. Cordin (Eds.), La Grammatica delle valenze (pp. 55–71). Franco Cesati Editore.
     [Google Scholar]
  196. (2021) La teoria della struttura argomentale dei verbi: problemi sintattici e proposte semantiche. In S. Schneider , G. Salvi & J. Garzonio (Eds.), La descrizione grammaticale dell’italiano. Parte 2 (pp. 47–66). Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.
     [Google Scholar]
  197. Jezek, E. & Lenci, A.
    (2007) When GL meets the corpus. A data driven investigation of semantic types and coercion phenomena. In P. Bouillon , L. Danlos & K. Kanzaky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon.
     [Google Scholar]
  198. Jezek, E. , Magnini, B. , Feltracco, A. , Bianchini, A. & Popescu, A.
    (2014) T-PAS: A resource of corpus-derived Typed Predicate Argument Structures for linguistic analysis and semantic processing. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 890–895. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
     [Google Scholar]
  199. Kamide, Y. , Altmann, G. T. M. , & Haywood, S. L.
    (2003) The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 , 133–156. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00023‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8 [Google Scholar]
  200. Kamp, H. & Rossdeutscher, A.
    (1994) Remarks on Lexical Structure and DRS Construction. Theoretical Linguistics, 20 (2/3), 97–164. 10.1515/thli.1994.20.2‑3.97
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1994.20.2-3.97 [Google Scholar]
  201. Karlsson, F.
    (1978) Finsk Grammatik. Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden Seura.
     [Google Scholar]
  202. Kayne, R. S.
    (1975) French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  203. (2000) Person morphemes and reflexives in Italian, French, and related languages. In C. Tortora (Ed.), The Syntax of Italian Dialects (pp. 131–162). Oxford Academic. 10.1093/oso/9780195136456.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195136456.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  204. Keller, F. & Lapata, M.
    (1998) Object Drop and Discourse Accessibility. In K. N. Shahin , S. Blake & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 362–374). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  205. Kiparsky, P.
    (1982) Lexical morphology and phonology. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 3–92). Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  206. (1997) Remarks on denominal verbs. In A. Alsina , J. Bresnan & P. Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates (pp. 473–499). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  207. Koenig, J.-P. & Davis, A. R.
    (2006) The KEY to lexical semantics representations. Journal of Linguistics, 42 (1), 71–108. 10.1017/S0022226705003695
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003695 [Google Scholar]
  208. Koenig, J.-P. , Mauner, G. & Bienvenue, B.
    (2003) Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89, 67–103. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00082‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00082-9 [Google Scholar]
  209. Koenig, J.-P. , Bienvenue, B. , Mauner, G. & Conklin, K.
    (2008) What With? The Anatomy of a (Proto)-Role. Journal of Semantics, 25 (2), 175–220. 10.1093/jos/ffm013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm013 [Google Scholar]
  210. Kravtchenko, E.
    (2014) Predictability and syntactic production: Evidence from subject omission in Russian. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 785–790.
     [Google Scholar]
  211. Kurumada, C. & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2015) Communicative efficiency in language production: optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83 , 152–178. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  212. Lakoff, G.
    (1968) Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structure. Foundations of Language, 4 , 4–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  213. Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. R.
    (1976) Why you can’t do so into the sink. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground (pp. 101–111). Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368859_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368859_008 [Google Scholar]
  214. Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R.
    (1985) Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  215. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  216. (1990) Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  217. Lee, J. & Thompson, C. K.
    (2011) Real-time production of arguments and adjuncts in normal and agrammatic speakers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26 (8), 985–1021. 10.1080/01690965.2010.496237
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.496237 [Google Scholar]
  218. Lehmann, C.
    (2010) Roots, stems and word classes. In U. Ansaldo , J. Don & R. Pfau (Eds.), Parts of Speech: Descriptive tools, theoretical constructs (pp. 546–567). John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.25.03leh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.25.03leh [Google Scholar]
  219. Lenci, A.
    (2018) Distributional Models of Word Meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4 , 151–171. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑030514‑125254
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125254 [Google Scholar]
  220. Lenci, A. & Sahlgren, M.
    (2023) Distributional Semantics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9780511783692
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511783692 [Google Scholar]
  221. Leonard, L. B.
    (1998) Children with specific language impairment. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  222. (2014) Specific Language Impairment across languages. Child Development Perspective, 8 (1), 1–5. 10.1111/cdep.12053
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12053 [Google Scholar]
  223. Levin, B.
    (1979) Instrumental “With” and the Control Relation in English. MIT AI Laboratory, Memo no. 552.
     [Google Scholar]
  224. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  225. Levin, B. & Rappaport-Hovav, M.
    (1988) Nonevent -er Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure. Linguistics, 26 , 1067–1083. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067 [Google Scholar]
  226. (2005) Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  227. Levy, R. & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2007) Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schlökopf , J. Platt & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS 19) (pp. 849–856). MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0111
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7503.003.0111 [Google Scholar]
  228. Lockridge, C. B. & Brennan, S. E.
    (2002) Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (3), 550–557. 10.3758/BF03196312
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196312 [Google Scholar]
  229. Lorenzetti, M. I.
    (2008) The Null Instantiation of Objects as a Polysemy-Trigger. A Study on the English Verb See. Lexis Journal in English Lexicology, 1 , 59–83. 10.4000/lexis.769
     https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.769 [Google Scholar]
  230. MacDonald, M. C. , Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S.
    (1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological review, 101 (4), 676–703. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.4.676
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 [Google Scholar]
  231. MacLaury, R. E.
    (1991) Prototypes Revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20 , 55–74. 10.1146/annurev.an.20.100191.000415
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.20.100191.000415 [Google Scholar]
  232. Maguire, M. J. , Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M.
    (2006) A Unified Theory of Word Learning: Putting Verb Acquisition in Context. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 364–391). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170009.003.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170009.003.0015 [Google Scholar]
  233. Mahowald, K. , Fedorenko, E. , Piantadosi, S. T. & Gibson, E.
    (2013) Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126 (2), 313–318. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  234. Manning, C. D.
    (2003) Probabilistic syntax. In R. Bod , J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 289–341). MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5582.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  235. Mantovan, L. & Suozzi, A.
    (2023) Instrument Syntactic Realization in Italian and LIS. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale, 57 (57), 87–112. 10.30687/annoc/2499‑1562/2023/01/004
     https://doi.org/10.30687/annoc/2499-1562/2023/01/004 [Google Scholar]
  236. Maouene, J. , Laakso, A. & Smith, L. B.
    (2011) Object Associations of Early-Learned Light and Heavy English Verbs. First Language, 31 (1), 109–132. 10.1177/0142723710380528
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723710380528 [Google Scholar]
  237. Marantz, A. P.
    (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  238. Matthews, P. H.
    (1981) Syntax. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  239. Mauner, G. & J.-P. Koenig
    (2000) Linguistic vs. conceptual sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43 (1), 110–134. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2703
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2703 [Google Scholar]
  240. Mauner, G. , Tanenhaus, M. K. & Carlson, G. N.
    (1995) Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 24 , 357–382. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1016
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1016 [Google Scholar]
  241. Mazurkewich, I.
    (1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16 (3), 261–283. 10.1016/0010‑0277(84)90030‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(84)90030-1 [Google Scholar]
  242. McElree, B. & Griffith, T.
    (1998) Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: a time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24 (2), 432–460. 10.1037/0278‑7393.24.2.432
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.432 [Google Scholar]
  243. McNeill, D.
    (1970) The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental Psycholinguistics. Harper & Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  244. McRae, K. , Ferretti, T. R. & Amyote, L.
    (1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12 (2), 137–176. 10.1080/016909697386835
     https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386835 [Google Scholar]
  245. McRae, K. , Hare, M. , Elman, J. L. & Ferretti, T. R.
    (2005) A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory and Cognition, 33 (7), 1174–1184. 10.3758/BF03193221
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193221 [Google Scholar]
  246. McRae, K. , Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (1998) Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38 , 283–312. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2543
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2543 [Google Scholar]
  247. Medina, T. N.
    (2007) Learning Which Verbs Allow Object Omission: Verb Semantic Selectivity and the Implicit Object Construction. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University.
  248. Mervis, C. B. & E. Rosch
    (1981) Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 , 89–115. 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513 [Google Scholar]
  249. Meyer, A.
    (1996) Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture-word inference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35 , 477–496. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0026
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0026 [Google Scholar]
  250. Mikolov, T. , Chen, K. , Corrado, G. , & Dean, J.
    (2013a) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.
     [Google Scholar]
  251. Mikolov, T. , Sutskever, I. , Chen, K. , Corrado, G. & Dean, J.
    (2013b) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3111–3119.
     [Google Scholar]
  252. Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R. S.
    (1981) The relation between age and mean length of utterances in morphemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24 (2), 154–161. 10.1044/jshr.2402.154
     https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2402.154 [Google Scholar]
  253. Miller, P.
    (1998) Complèments et circonstants: une distinction syntaxique ou sèmantique?Cycnos, 15 , 91–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  254. Mittwoch, A.
    (2005) Unspecified Arguments in Episodic and Habitual Sentences. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect. Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation (pp. 237–254). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  255. Mosel, U.
    (2014) Corpus linguistic and documentary approaches in writing a grammar of a previously undescribed language. In T. Nakayama & K. Rice (Eds.), The Art and Practice of Grammar Writing. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication, 8 , 135–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  256. Nagy, W. & Gentner, D.
    (1990) Semantic constraints on lexical categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5 (3), 169–201. 10.1080/01690969008402104
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969008402104 [Google Scholar]
  257. Næss, Å.
    (2007) Prototypical Transitivity. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/tsl.72
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.72 [Google Scholar]
  258. Nelson, K.
    (1973) Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (1/2), 1–135. 10.2307/1165788
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1165788 [Google Scholar]
  259. Newport, E. L. , Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R.
    (1977) Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C. E. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Ads.), Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition (pp. 109–149). Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199828098.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199828098.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  260. Nilsen, D. L.
    (1973) The Instrumental Case in English: Syntactic and Semantic Considerations. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110815498
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815498 [Google Scholar]
  261. Nivre, J. , de Marneffe, M.-J. , Ginter, F. , Goldberg, Y. , Hajič, J. , Manning, C. D. , McDonald, R. , Petrov, S. , Pyysalo, S. , Silveira, N. , Tsarfaty, R. & Zeman, D.
    (2016) Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In N. Calzolari , K. Choukri , T. Declerck , M. Grobelnik , B. Maegaard , J. Mariani , A. Moreno , J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2016 (pp. 1659–1666). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
     [Google Scholar]
  262. O’Grady, W. , Yamashita, Y. & Cho, S.
    (2008) Object Drop in Japanese and Korean. Language Acquisition 15 (1), 58–68. 10.1080/10489220701774278
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220701774278 [Google Scholar]
  263. Olsen, M. B. & Resnik, P.
    (1997) Implicit Object Constructions and the (In)Transitivity Continuum. Papers from the 33rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 33 (1), 327–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  264. Ono, N.
    (1992) Instruments: A Case Study of the Interface between Syntax and Lexical Semantics. English Linguistics, 9 , 196–222. 10.9793/elsj1984.9.196
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.9.196 [Google Scholar]
  265. Osherson, D. N. , Stob, M. & Weinstein, S.
    (1985) Systems That Learn. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6609.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6609.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  266. Palermo, M.
    (2013) Linguistica testuale dell’italiano. Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  267. Pate, J. K. & Goldwater, S.
    (2015) Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently. Journal of Memory and Language, 78 , 1–17. 10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  268. Patejuk, A. & Przepiórkowski, A.
    (2016) Reducing grammatical functions in Lexical Functional Grammar. In D. Arnold , M. Butt , B. Crysmann , T. Holloway King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (pp. 541–559).
     [Google Scholar]
  269. Pethõ, G. & Kardos, E.
    (2009) Cross-Linguistic Evidence and the Licensing of Implicit Arguments. In B. Behrens & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Structuring information in discourse: the explicit/implicit dimension. Oslo Studies in Language, 1 (1), 34–61. 10.5617/osla.3
     https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.3 [Google Scholar]
  270. Piantadosi, S. T. , Tily, H. & Gibson, S.
    (2011) Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. In P. Kay (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (9), 3526–3529. 10.1073/pnas.1012551108
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108 [Google Scholar]
  271. Pinker, S.
    (1979) Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7 , 217–283. 10.1016/0010‑0277(79)90001‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(79)90001-5 [Google Scholar]
  272. (1982) A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretive grammars. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 655–726). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  273. (1984) Language Learnability and Language Development. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  274. (1987) The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 399–441). Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781315798721‑20
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315798721-20 [Google Scholar]
  275. (2013) Learnability and cognition (2nd ed.). MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9700.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9700.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  276. Pinker, S. , Lebeaux, D. S. & Frost, L. A.
    (1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26 (3), 195–267. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(87)80001‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80001-X [Google Scholar]
  277. Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M. C.
    (1992) The acquisition of Italian morphology. Implications for models of language development. Journal of Child Language, 19 (3), 491–557. 10.1017/S0305000900011557
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900011557 [Google Scholar]
  278. Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M. C.
    (1993) L’acquisizione della morfologia flessiva nel linguaggio spontaneo: evidenza per modelli innatisti o cognitivisti?In E. Cresti & M. Moneglia (Eds.), Ricerche sull’acquisizione dell’italiano (pp. 165–187). Bulzoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  279. Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A.
    (1987) Information-based syntax and semantics. CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  280. (1994) Head-driven phrase-structure grammar. Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  281. Potts, C.
    (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  282. Przepiórkowski, A.
    (2016a) Against the Argument–Adjunct Distinction in Functional Generative Description. The Prague Bullettin of Mathematics, 106 , 5–20. 10.1515/pralin‑2016‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pralin-2016-0008 [Google Scholar]
  283. (2016b) How not to distinguish arguments from adjuncts in LFG. In D. Arnold , M. Butt , B. Crysmann , T. Holloway King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, 560–580. 10.21248/hpsg.2016.29
     https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2016.29 [Google Scholar]
  284. (2017) Hierarchical lexicon and the argument/adjunct distinction. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG’17 Conference (pp. 348–367). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  285. Przepiórkowski, A. & Patejuk, A.
    (2018) Arguments and Adjuncts in Universal Dependencies. In E. M. Bender , L. Derczynski , P. Isabelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 3837–3852). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  286. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1991) The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17 (4), 410–441.
     [Google Scholar]
  287. (1993) Type Coercion and Lexical Selection. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 73–94). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1972‑6_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  288. (1995a) Linguistic Constraints on Type Coercion. In P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics (pp. 71–97). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527227.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.007 [Google Scholar]
  289. (1995b) The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  290. (1996) Lexical Shadowing and Argument Closure. MS Thesis. Brandeis University.
     [Google Scholar]
  291. (2001) Type Construction and the Logic of Concepts. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The Language of Word Meaning (pp. 91–123). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511896316.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511896316.009 [Google Scholar]
  292. (2006) Type theory and lexical decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Science, 7 (1), 39–76. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5189‑7_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_2 [Google Scholar]
  293. (2011) Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1401–1431. 10.1515/ling.2011.039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.039 [Google Scholar]
  294. (2012) Co-compositionality in Grammar. In W. Hinzen , E. Machery & M. Werning (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (pp. 371–382). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.013.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.013.0017 [Google Scholar]
  295. Pustejovsky, J. & Boguraev, B.
    (1993) Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 63 , 193–223. 10.1016/0004‑3702(93)90017‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90017-6 [Google Scholar]
  296. Pustejovsky, J. & Jezek, E.
    (2008) Semantic Coercion in Language: Beyond Distributional Analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20 (1), 181–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  297. Pustejovsky, J. & Joshi, A.
    (2017) Lexical Factorization and Syntactic Behavior. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 15 (1), 1–21. 10.33011/lilt.v15i.1407
     https://doi.org/10.33011/lilt.v15i.1407 [Google Scholar]
  298. Radford, A.
    (1988) Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840425
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840425 [Google Scholar]
  299. Randall, J. H.
    (1992) The catapult hypothesis: An approach to unlearning. In J. Weissenborn , H. Goodluck & T. Roeper (Eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development (pp. 93–138). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  300. Rappaport-Hovav, M. & Levin, B.
    (1988) What to do with θ — roles. In W. Wilkins (Ed), Thematic Relations (pp. 7–36). Brill. 10.1163/9789004373211_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373211_003 [Google Scholar]
  301. Rasetti, L.
    (2003) Optional categories in early French syntax: a developmental study of root infinitives and null arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Genève.
  302. Ratitamkul, T. , Goldberg, A. E. & Fisher, C.
    (2004) The Role of Discourse Context in Determining the Argument Structure of Novel Verbs with Omitted Arguments. In Clark, E. V. (ed.), Constructions and acquisition. Proceedings of the 32nd Stanford Child Language Research Forum (pp. 12–19). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  303. Reinhart, T.
    (1981) Definite NP Anaphora and C-Command Domains. Linguistic Inquiry, 12 (4), 605–635.
     [Google Scholar]
  304. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  305. Renzi, L.
    (1989) Sviluppi paralleli in italiano e nelle altre lingue romanze. I pronomi clitici nella lunga durata. In F. Foresti , E. Rizzi & P. Benedini (Eds.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze. Atti del XX Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 99 — 113). Bulzoni.
     [Google Scholar]
  306. Resnik, P. S.
    (1993) Selection and Information: A Class-Based Approach to Lexical Relationships. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
  307. (1996) Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61 (1–2), 127–159. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00722‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00722-6 [Google Scholar]
  308. Rice, M. L. , Noll, K. R. & Grimm, H.
    (1997) An Extended Optional Infinitive Stage in German-Speaking Children With Specific Language Impairment. Language Acquisition, 6 (4), 255–295. 10.1207/s15327817la0604_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0604_1 [Google Scholar]
  309. Rice, M. L. , Wexler, K. & Hershberger, S.
    (1998) Tense Over Time: The Longitudinal Course of Tense Acquisition in Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41 (6), 1412–1431. 10.1044/jslhr.4106.1412
     https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4106.1412 [Google Scholar]
  310. Rissman, L.
    (2010) Instrumental with, locatum with and the argument/adjunct distinction. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts. Linguistic Society of America. 10.3765/exabs.v0i0.502
     https://doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.502 [Google Scholar]
  311. (2013a) Event Participant Representations and the Instrumental Role: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University.
  312. (2013b) Periphrastic use: a modal account of instrumentality. In Y. Fainleib , N. LaCara , & Y. Park (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistics Society, Vol. 2 (pp. 137–150). GLSA Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  313. Rissman, L. , Rawlins, K.
    (2017) Ingredients of Instrumental Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 34 (3), 507–537. 10.1093/jos/ffx003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffx003 [Google Scholar]
  314. Rissman, L. , Rawlins, K. & Landau, B.
    (2015) Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation. Cognition, 142 , 266–290. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  315. Rissman, L. , van Putten, S. & Majid, A.
    (2022) Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science, 46 , 2–42. 10.1111/cogs.13140
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13140 [Google Scholar]
  316. Rizzi, L.
    (1986) Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry, 17 (3), 501–557.
     [Google Scholar]
  317. Rizzi, L.
    (2000) Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  318. Rooth, M.
    (1992) A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1 (1), 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  319. Rosch, E.
    (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  320. Ruppenhofer, J. K. & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2010) A Constructional Account of Genre-Based Argument Omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2 (2), 158–184. 10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup [Google Scholar]
  321. Russo, L.
    (2021) Arguments, Adjuncts and Instruments in English and Turkish. MA Thesis. Carleton University. 10.22215/etd/2021‑14666
     https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2021-14666 [Google Scholar]
  322. Sabatini, F.
    (1985) L’italiano dell’uso medio: una realtà tra le varietà linguistiche italiane. In G. Holtus & E. Radtke (Eds.), Gesprochenes Italienisch in Geschichte un Gegenwart (pp. 154–184). Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  323. Samek-Lodovici, V.
    (2005) Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23 (3), 687–755. 10.1007/s11049‑004‑2874‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-2874-7 [Google Scholar]
  324. Sanders, G. A.
    (1975) Invariant Ordering. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110811971
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811971 [Google Scholar]
  325. Scalise, S.
    (1983) Morfologia lessicale. CLESP.
     [Google Scholar]
  326. Scalise, S. & Bisetto, A.
    (2008) La struttura delle parole. Il Mulino.
     [Google Scholar]
  327. Schank, R. C.
    (1975) Conceptual Information Processing. North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  328. Schikowski, R. , Bickel, B. & Paudyal, N. P.
    (2015) Flexible valency in Chintang. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages (pp. 669–708). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110338812‑022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338812-022 [Google Scholar]
  329. Schlesinger, I. M.
    (1974) Relational concepts underlying language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives — Acquisition, retardation and intervention (pp.129–151). University Park Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  330. (1989) Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 189–210. 10.1017/S0022226700012147
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012147 [Google Scholar]
  331. (1995) Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case: Semantic and Syntactic Categories in English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551321
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551321 [Google Scholar]
  332. Schütze, C. T.
    (1995) PP attachment and argumenthood. In C. T. Schütze , J. Ganger & K. Brolhier (Eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition (pp. 95–151). MIT Press. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2619
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2619 [Google Scholar]
  333. Schütze, C. T. & Gibson, E.
    (1999) Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40 (3), 409–431. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2619
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2619 [Google Scholar]
  334. Sedivy, J. & Spivey-Knowlton, M.
    (1994) The use of structural, lexical and pragmatic information in parsing attachment ambiguities. In C. Clifton, Jr. , L. Frazier , & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 389–413). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  335. Selkirk, E.
    (1995) Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing. In J. Goldsmith , J. Riggle & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 550–569). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  336. Sgall, P. & Hajičová, E.
    (1970) A “Functional” Generative Description. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 14 , 9–37. 10.2307/jj.6195015.30
     https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.6195015.30 [Google Scholar]
  337. Sgall, P. , Hajičová, E. & Panevová, J.
    (1986) The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Reidel.
     [Google Scholar]
  338. Shi, J. , Rees, A. & H. Rohde
    (2022) Adapting to children: Information redundancy in language production. Abstract from9th Experimental Pragmatics Conference.
     [Google Scholar]
  339. Somers, H. L.
    (1984) On the Validity of the Complement-Adjunct Distinction in Valency Grammar. Linguistics, 22 (4), 507–530. 10.1515/ling.1984.22.4.507
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1984.22.4.507 [Google Scholar]
  340. Sparck Jones, K.
    (1986) Synonymy and Semantic Classification. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  341. Speas, M.
    (1990) Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Kiuwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2045‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2045-3 [Google Scholar]
  342. Sportiche, D.
    (1998) Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure. Subjects, Agreement, Case and Clitics. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  343. Stella, G. , Pizzoli, C. & Tressoldi, P.
    (2000) Peabody: test di vocabolario recettivo. Omega Edizioni.
     [Google Scholar]
  344. Stoltz, T. , Stroh, C. & Urdze, A.
    (2013) Comitatives and Instrumentals. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Zenodo.
     [Google Scholar]
  345. Stroop, J. R.
    (1935) Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
     [Google Scholar]
  346. Suozzi, A. & Gagliardi, G.
    (2022a) The acquisition of the clitic ci among typically developing Italian preschoolers: preliminary data. Linguistik Online, 116 (4), 77–114. 10.13092/lo.116.8891
     https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.116.8891 [Google Scholar]
  347. (2022b) I pronomi clitici e la diagnosi del Disturbo del Linguaggio in età evolutiva: sull’utilizzo del clitico “ci”. CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos, 9 , 265–287. 10.15366/chimera2022.9.012
     https://doi.org/10.15366/chimera2022.9.012 [Google Scholar]
  348. Tal, S. , Grossman, E. & Arnon, I.
    (2021) Infant-directed Speech Becomes Less Redundant as Infants Grow: Implications for Language Learning. Cognition, 249 , 105817. 10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105817
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105817 [Google Scholar]
  349. Tal, S. Grossman , E. Arnon, I.
    (2024) Infant-directed speech becomes less redundant as infants grow: Implications for language learning. Cognition, 249 , 105817. 10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105817
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105817 [Google Scholar]
  350. Talmy, L.
    (1975) Semantics and the syntax of motion. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 4 (pp. 181–238). Brill. 10.1163/9789004368828_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368828_008 [Google Scholar]
  351. (1976) Semantic Causative Types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions (pp. 43–116). Brill. 10.1163/9789004368842_003
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368842_003 [Google Scholar]
  352. (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12 , 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  353. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume 1. Concept Structuring Systems (Language, Speech and Communication). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  354. Taylor, M. & Gelman, S. A.
    (1989) Incorporating new words into the lexicon: Preliminary evidence for language hierarchies in two-year-old children. Child Development, 60 (3), 625–636. 10.2307/1130728
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1130728 [Google Scholar]
  355. Tesnière, Lucien
    (1959) Elèments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck.
     [Google Scholar]
  356. Theakston, A. L.
    (2004) The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19 (1), 15–34. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  357. Theakston, A. L. , Lieven, E. V. M. , Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F.
    (2001) The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of child language, 28 (1), 127–152. 10.1017/S0305000900004608
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900004608 [Google Scholar]
  358. Tily, H. & Piantadosi, S. T.
    (2009) Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for morepredictable meanings. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference.
     [Google Scholar]
  359. Tomasello, M.
    (2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition, 74 (3), 209–253. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00069‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4 [Google Scholar]
  360. Tonelli, L. & Fabris, M.
    (2005) L’acquisizione della flessione verbale esemplificazione di un metodo di ricerca. Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere dell’Università degli Studi di Sassari, 2–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  361. Travis, L.
    (2000) Event Structure in Syntax. In C. L. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects. The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax (pp. 145–185). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  362. Trueswell, J. C. & Kim, A. E.
    (1998) How To Prune A Garden Path By Nipping It In The Bud: Fast-Priming Of Verb Argument Structures. Journal of Memory and Language 39 (1), 102–123. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2565
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2565 [Google Scholar]
  363. Tuller, L. , Delage, H. , Monjauzea, C. , Pillerb, A.-G. , & Barthez, M.-A.
    (2011) Clitic pronoun production as a measure of atypical language development in French. Lingua, 121 (3), 423–441. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  364. Tutunjian, D. & Boland, J. E.
    (2008) Do We Need a Distinction between Arguments and Adjuncts? Evidence from Psycholinguistic Studies of Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (4), 631–646. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00071.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00071.x [Google Scholar]
  365. Van Hooste, K.
    (2018) Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  366. Van Valin, R. D. Jr.
    (2001) An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164320
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164320 [Google Scholar]
  367. (2005) Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  368. Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & Lapolla, R.
    (1997) Syntax: form, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  369. Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & Wilkins, D. P.
    (1996) The case for “Effector”: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp. 289–322). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  370. Varlokosta, S. , Belletti, A. , Costa, J. , Friedmann, N. , Gavarró, A. , Grohmann, K. K. , Guasti, M. T. , Tuller, L. , Lobo, M. , Anđelković, D. , Argemí, N. , Avram, L. , Berends, S. , Brunetto, V. , Delage, H. , Ezeizabarrena, M.-J. , Fattal, I. , Haman, E. , van Hout, A. , Jensen de López, K. , Katsos, N. , Kologranic, L. , Krstić, N. , Kuvac Kraljevic, J. , Miękisz, A. , Nerantzini, M. , Queraltó, C. , Radic, Z. , Ruiz, S. , Sauerland, U. , Sevcenco, A. , Smoczyńska, M. , Theodorou, E. , van der Lely, H. , Veenstra, A. , Weston, J. , Yachini, M. , & Yatsushiro, K.
    (2016) A cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of clitic and pronoun production. Language Acquisition, 23 (1), 1–26. 10.1080/10489223.2015.1028628
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2015.1028628 [Google Scholar]
  371. Vater, H.
    (1978) On the possibility of distinguishing between complements and adjuncts. In W. Abraham (ed.), Valence, semantic case and grammatical relations, Volume 1 (pp. 21–45). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.1.05vat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.1.05vat [Google Scholar]
  372. Waxman, S. R.
    (1994) The development of an appreciation of specific linkages between linguistic and conceptual organization. Lingua, 92 , 229–257. 10.1016/0024‑3841(94)90343‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90343-3 [Google Scholar]
  373. Waxman, S. R. & Kosowski, T.
    (1990) Nouns mark category relations: Toddlers’ and preschoolers’ word-learning biases. Child Development, 61 (5), 1461–1473. 10.2307/1130756
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1130756 [Google Scholar]
  374. Wexler, K.
    (1998) Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint. A new explanation for the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106 (1–4), 23–79. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(98)00029‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1 [Google Scholar]
  375. Wexler, K.
    (2004) Lenneberg’s dream: learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Y. Levy & J. C. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language Competence across Populations (pp. 239–284). Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.1163/9780080474748_013
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080474748_013 [Google Scholar]
  376. Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. W.
    (1980) Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  377. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1985) Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Karoma.
     [Google Scholar]
  378. Wilks, Y.
    (1975) A Preferential Pattern Seeking Semantics for Natural Language Processing. Artificial Intelligence, 6 (53), 53–74. 10.1016/0004‑3702(75)90016‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(75)90016-8 [Google Scholar]
  379. Wojcik, R. H.
    (1976) Where Do Instrumental NPs Come From?In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions (pp. 165–180). Brill. 10.1163/9789004368842_006
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368842_006 [Google Scholar]
  380. Wonnacott, E. , Newport, E. L. & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (2008) Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive psychology, 56 (3), 165–209. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  381. Yamamoto, M.
    (1999) Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.46
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]
  382. Yasutake, T.
    (1987) Objectless Transitives in English. The Bulletin of Aichi University of Education, 36 , 43–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  383. Zipf, G. K.
    (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  384. Zwicky, A. M.
    (1977) On clitics. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  385. (1985) Clitics and particles. Language, 61 (2), 283–305. 10.2307/414146
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414146 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027243850
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027243850
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027243850
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027243850
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error