Contrasts in the Spanish and Korean external possession constructions

References

1. Aissen, J.
   1979 Possessor Ascension in Tzotzil. InPapers in Mayan Linguistics, L. Martin (ed), 89–108. Columbia: Lucas Brothers Publisher.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Allen, B. D., Frantz, D., Gardiner, D. B. and Perlmutter, D.
   1990 Verb agreement, possessor ascension, and multistratal representation in Southern Tiwa. InStudies in relational grammar 3, B. Joseph and P. Postal (eds), 321–383. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J. and Lowe, J. B.
   1998 The Berkeley FrameNet Project. 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1. Montreal, Canada, August 1998. Association for Computational Linguistics. 86–90
   [Google Scholar]
4. Boas, H. C.
   2010 Comparing constructions across languages. InContrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, H. C. Boas (ed), 1–20. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10.02boa
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.02boa [Google Scholar]
5. Borer, H. and Grodzinsky, Y.
   1986 Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. InSyntax and Semantics191, H. Borer (ed), 175–217. New York: Academic Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cho, S.
   1998 A new analysis of Korean inalienable possession constructions. Proceedings of NELS281, Toronto, Canada, 24–26 October 1997. University of Massachusetts Amherst: GLSA. 79–93.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Cole, P. and Sridhar, S. N.
   1977 Clause Union and Relational Grammar: Evidence from Hebrew and Kannada. Linguistic Inquiry8(4): 700–713.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Conti, C.
   2011 Possessive Dative Revisited: Another View of External Possession in Spanish. Studia Linguistica65(2): 170–197. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2011.01180.x
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2011.01180.x [Google Scholar]
9. Croft, W.
   2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
10. Cuervo, M. C.
    2003 Datives at Large. PhD Thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Davies, W. D.
    1997 Relational succession in Kinyarwanda possessor ascension. Lingua1011: 89–l14. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00037‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00037-X [Google Scholar]
12. Davies, W. and Rosen, C.
    1988 Unions as Multi-Predicate Clauses. Language64(1): 52–88. 10.2307/414785
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414785 [Google Scholar]
13. Deal, A. R.
    2013 Possessor Raising. Linguistic Inquiry44(3): 391–432. 10.1162/LING_a_00133
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00133 [Google Scholar]
14. Deal, A. R.
    2017 External possession and possessor raising. InThe Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax. 2nd edition, M. Everaert and H. C. van Riemsdijk (eds), 1–32. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047 [Google Scholar]
15. Demonte, V.
    1988 El “artículo en lugar del posesivo” y el control de los sintagmas nominales. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica361: 89–108. 10.24201/nrfh.v36i1.665
    https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v36i1.665 [Google Scholar]
16. Demonte, V.
    1995 Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus71: 5–30. 10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.1995.7.1.5 [Google Scholar]
17. Fillmore, C. J.
    1988 The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley/ California, USA, 13–15 February 1988. Berkeley Linguistic Society. 35–55. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
18. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M. C.
    1988 Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language64(3): 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
19. Fried, M.
    1999 From Interest to Ownership: A Constructional View of External Possessors. InExternal possession, D. Payne and I. Barshi (eds), 473–504. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.39.24fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.39.24fri [Google Scholar]
20. Gast, V.
    2012 Contrastive Linguistics: Theories and Methods. Ms., Jena: Friedrich Schiller University.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gerdts, D. B.
    1992 The Syntax of Case-Marked Possessors in Korean. Proceedings of the Korean Syntax and Semantics Workshop. Santa Cruz/California, USA, July 1991. Linguistic Society of America, Linguistic Institute. 11–26.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gerdts, D. B.
    1999 Mapping Possessors: Parameterizing the External Possessor Construction. InExternal possession, D. Payne and I. Barshi (eds), 137–163. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.39.10ger
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.39.10ger [Google Scholar]
23. Gibson, J. and Raposo, E.
    1986 Clause union, the Stratal Uniqueness Law, and the chômeur relation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory41: 295–331. 10.1007/BF00133372
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133372 [Google Scholar]
24. Goldberg, A. E.
    1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Goldberg, A. E.
    2005 Constructions at work: constructionist approaches in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
26. Goldberg, A. E.
    2013 Constructionist Approaches. InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds), 14–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
27. Haspelmath, M.
    1999 External Possession in a European Areal Perspective. InExternal possession, D. Payne and I. Barshi (eds), 109–135. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.39.09has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.39.09has [Google Scholar]
28. Horn, L.
    2013 I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. InBeyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning, D. Gutzmann and H.-M. Gärtner (eds), 151–199. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004183988_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004183988_006 [Google Scholar]
29. Kay, P. and Fillmore, C. J.
    1999 Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The ‘What’s X Doing Y?’ Construction. Language75(1): 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
30. Kim, J.-B.
    2016 The Syntactic Structure of Korean: A Construction Grammar Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316217405
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316217405 [Google Scholar]
31. Kim, J.-B. and Michaelis, L. A.
    2020 Syntactic constructions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kliffer, M.
    1983 Beyond syntax: Spanish inalienable possession. Linguistics211: 759–794. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.6.759
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.6.759 [Google Scholar]
33. König, E.
    2012 Contrastive Linguistics and Language Comparison. Languages in Contrast121: 3–26. 10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon [Google Scholar]
34. Landau, I.
    1999 Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua1071: 1–37. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(98)00025‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00025-4 [Google Scholar]
35. Lee-Schoenfeld, V.
    2006 German possessor datives: raised and affected. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics91: 101–142. 10.1007/s10828‑006‑9001‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-006-9001-6 [Google Scholar]
36. Maling, J. and Kim, S.
    1992 Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics11: 37–68. 10.1007/BF00129573
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129573 [Google Scholar]
37. O’Connor, M. C.
    2007 External possession and utterance interpretation: A crosslinguistic exploration. Linguistics45(3): 577–613. 10.1515/LING.2007.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.018 [Google Scholar]
38. O’Grady, W.
    1991 Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.71 [Google Scholar]
39. Payne, D. and Barshi, I.
    (eds) 1999 External possession. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.39 [Google Scholar]
40. Reali, F.
    2017 Acceptability of Dative Argument Structure in Spanish: Assessing Semantic and Usage-Based Factors. Cognitive Science411: 2170–2190. 10.1111/cogs.12459
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12459 [Google Scholar]
41. Roldán, M.
    1972 Concerning Spanish Datives and Possessives. Language Sciences211: 27–32.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Rosen, C.
    1990 Rethinking Southern Tiwa: The Geometry of a Triple-Agreement Language. Language66(4): 669–713. 10.2307/414726
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414726 [Google Scholar]
43. Shibatani, M.
    1994 An Integrational Approach to Possessor Raising, Ethical Datives, and Adversative Passives. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore. Berkeley/California, USA, 18–21 February. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. 461–486.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Shin, K.-y.
    2022 A Pragmatic Approach to External Possession Constructions. Journal of Studies in Language38(1): 73–88.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Yeon, J.-H.
    1999 A cognitive account of the constraints on possessor-ascension constructions. Language Research351: 211–230.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Yeon, J.-H.
    2019 A Variety of Grammatical Constructions: Double-Accusative Constructions in Korean Revisited. Korean Linguistics851: 203–241. 10.20405/kl.2019.11.85.203
    https://doi.org/10.20405/kl.2019.11.85.203 [Google Scholar]
47. Yoon, J. H. S.
    1990 Theta theory and the grammar of inalienable possession constructions. Proceedings of NELS 20. Pittsburgh, USA, November 1989. University of Massachusetts Amherst: GLSA. 502–516.
    [Google Scholar]