Locatum and location verbs in Italian

References

1. Acedo-Matellán, V. & Real-Puigdollers, C.
   2015 Location and locatum verbs revisited: Evidence from aspect and quantification. Acta Linguistica Humgarica, 62: 2, 111–140. 10.1556/064.2015.62.2.1
   https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2015.62.2.1 [Google Scholar]
2. Acquaviva, P.
   2008 Roots and lexicality in distributed morphology. Ms., UC Dublin.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F.
   2006 The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. InM. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 187–212. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197723.4.187
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.4.187 [Google Scholar]
4. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F.
   2015 External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations. A Layering Approach. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571949.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
5. Anderson, S. R.
   1971 On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7, 387–396.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boons, J-P.
   1971 Métaphore et baisse de la redondance. Langue française, 11, 15–16. 10.3406/lfr.1971.5543
   https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1971.5543 [Google Scholar]
7. Boons, J-P.
   1984 Sceller un piton dans le mur, desceller un piton du mur. Pour une syntaxe de la prefixation negative. Langue française, 62, 95–128. 10.3406/lfr.1984.5192
   https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1984.5192 [Google Scholar]
8. Boons, J-P.
   1986 Des verbes ou compléments locatifs « Hamlet » à l’effet du même nom. Revue québécoise de Linguistique, 15: 12, 57–88. 10.7202/602561ar
   https://doi.org/10.7202/602561ar [Google Scholar]
9. Chierchia, G.
   2004 A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. InA. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusative puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, 22–59. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199257652.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
10. Clark, E. & Clark, H.
    1979 When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767–811. 10.2307/412745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
11. Folli, R.
    2001 Constructing Telicity in English and Italian. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.
12. Gilbert Sotelo, E.
    2018 Deriving ablative, privative, and reversative meanings in Catalan and Spanish. Borealis, 7: 2, 161–185. 10.7557/1.7.2.4565
    https://doi.org/10.7557/1.7.2.4565 [Google Scholar]
13. Gross, M.
    1975 Méthodes en syntaxe. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Gross, M.
    1995 La notion de lieu argument du verbe. InTendances récentes en linguistique française et générale, volume dédié à David Gaatone, 173–200. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lis.20.18gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.20.18gro [Google Scholar]
15. Grossmann, M. & Rainer, F.
    2004 La formazione delle parole in italiano. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110934410
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110934410 [Google Scholar]
16. Grossmann, M.
    1994 Opposizioni direzionali e prefissazione: analisi morfologica e semantica dei verbi egressivi prefissati con des- e es- in catalano. Padova: Unipress.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Guillet, A. & Leclère, C.
    1992 La structure des phrases simples en français. Les constructions transitives locatives. Genève/Paris: Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J.
    1997 The limits of argument structure. InA. M. Mendikoetxea & M. Uribe-Etxebarria (Eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, 203–230. Bilbao/Donostia-San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco and Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J.
    2002 Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
20. Hale, K.
    1986 Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. InP. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and projections, 233–254. Dodrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110871661‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871661-009 [Google Scholar]
21. Harley, H.
    2005 How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. InN. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
22. Haspelmath, M.
    1993 More on typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. InB. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.23.05has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has [Google Scholar]
23. Haspelmath, M., Calude, A., Spagnol, M., Narrog, H. & Bamyack, E.
    2014 Coding casual-noncasual verb alternations: a from-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics, 50: 3, 587–625. 10.1017/S0022226714000255
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000255 [Google Scholar]
24. Heidinger, S.
    2015 Causalness and the encoding of the causative-anticausative alternation in French and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics, 51: 3, 562–94. 10.1017/S0022226714000607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000607 [Google Scholar]
25. Iacobini, C.
    2004 Parasintesi. InM. Grossmann & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 166–188. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Ikegami, Y.
    1987 ‘Source’ and ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. InR. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concept of Case, 122–146. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Ishibashi, M.
    2012 The expressions of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The asymmetry of Source and Goal revisited. InA. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of Putting and Taking. A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.100.17ish
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100.17ish [Google Scholar]
28. Jackendoff, R.
    1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Jackendoff, R.
    1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
30. Kayne, R. S.
    1975 French Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kiparsky, P.
    1997 Remarks on Denominal Verbs. InA. Alsina, J. Bresnan & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates, 473–499. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kopecka, A. & Narasimhan, B.
    2012 Events of Putting and Taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100 [Google Scholar]
33. Labelle, M.
    1992 La structure argumentale des verbes locatifs à base nominale. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, XV: 1, 267–315. 10.1075/li.16.2.03lab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.16.2.03lab [Google Scholar]
34. Labelle, M.
    2000 The semantic representation of denominal verbs. InP. Coopmans, M. Everaert & J. Grimshaw (Eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 215–240. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.197.11lab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.11lab [Google Scholar]
35. Lakusta, L. & Landau, B.
    2005 Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language, Cognition, 96, 1–33. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009 [Google Scholar]
36. Landau, B.
    2010 Paths in language and cognition: Universal asymmetries and their cause. InG. Marotta, A. Lenci, L. Meini & F. Rovai (Eds.), Space in language, 73–94. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    1995 Unaccusativity. At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    1998 Morphology and Lexical Semantics. InA. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Levin, B.
    1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Mateu, J.
    2001 On the relational semantics of transitive denominal verbs. InM. L. Jungl, O. F. Soriano & M. V. E. Vidal (Eds.), Current issues in generative grammar, 143–164. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Mateu, J.
    2002 Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Doctoral dissertation. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. seneca.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/index.html
42. Mateu, J.
    2008 Argument structure and denominal verbs. Paper presented at theWorkshop on Bare Singulars, Argument Structure, and Their Interpretation, December 11–12, 2008, Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Nam, S.
    2004 Goal and Source: Their Syntactic and Semantic Asymmetry, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1–29. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v30i1.940
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v30i1.940 [Google Scholar]
44. Nedyalkov, V. P. & Silnitsky, G. G.
    1973 The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives. InF. Kiefer (Ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, 18, 1–32. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2536‑2_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2536-2_1 [Google Scholar]
45. Pinker, S.
    1989 Learnibility and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Rapaport, T.
    2012 Central coincidence: The Preposition With. InJ.-M. Merle & A. Steuckardt (Eds.), Prépositions & Aspectualité, 159–173. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Rappaport Hovav, M.
    2014 Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141, 8–29. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006 [Google Scholar]
48. Reinhart, T.
    2002 The Theta System – An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229–90.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Schäfer, F.
    2009 The Causative Alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3: 2, 641–81. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00127.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00127.x [Google Scholar]
50. Schäfer, F. & Vivanco, M.
    2015 Reflexively marked anticausatives are not semantically reflexive. InE. O. Aboh, J. C. Schaeffer & P. Sleeman (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam 2013, 203–220. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/rllt.8.11sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.8.11sch [Google Scholar]
51. Talmy, L.
    1985 Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Talmy, L.
    1991 Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17, 480–519. 10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620 [Google Scholar]
53. Talmy, L.
    2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics, II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Vietri, S.
    2017 Usi verbali dell’italiano: le frasi anticausative. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Vietri, S.
    2020 The Lexicon of Transitive Verbs of Motion and the Asymmetry Between Goal and Source PPs, International Journal of Linguistics, 12: 6, 81–115. 10.5296/ijl.v12i6.17808
    https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v12i6.17808 [Google Scholar]