1887
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Into adpositions, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/lv.00039.int-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00039.int
2021-02-18
2021-02-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acedo Matellán, Víctor
    2010 Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages. Universitat de BarcelonaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor
    2016The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Acedo-Matellán, Víctor . & Jaume Mateu
    2015 Parameters and argument structure I: Motion predicates and resultatives. In Antonio Fábregas , Jaume Mateu & Michael Putnam , (eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters, 99–122. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mark C.
    1996The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belvin, Robert & Marcel den Dikken
    1997 There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua101. 151–183. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00049‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00049-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biberauer, Theresa
    (ed.) (2008) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.132
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.132 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2017a Particles and the Final-over-Final Condition. In Michelle Sheehan , Theresa Biberauer , Ian Roberts & Anders Holmberg . The Final-over-Final Condition: A syntactic universal, 187–296. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017b Probing the nature of the Final-over-Final Condition: The perspective from adpositions. In Laura Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds), Order and structure in syntax, 179–219. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts
    2015 Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification. In James N. Chancharu , Xuhui Hu & Moreno Mitrović (eds), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics7, 1–31. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, Noam
    1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Boston: Ginn.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2001 Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi
    2010The cartography of syntactic structures, vol 6, Mapping spatial PPs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Corver, Norbert
    1992 “Bij Marie in de nek”. Interne structuur en extractiegedrag. Gramma/JTT1. 21–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grimshaw, Jane B.
    2005Words and structure. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel J. Keyser
    1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2002Prolegomenon 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]
  19. Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer
    1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hinzen, Wolfram
    2014 On the rationality of case. Language Sciences46. 133–151. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Inagaki, Shunji
    2002 Motion verbs with locational/directional PPs in English and Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique47(3–4). 187–234. 10.1017/S0008413100022945
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100022945 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Klipple, Elizabeth
    1997 Prepositions and variation. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity, 74–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Koopman, Hilda
    1993The structure of Dutch PPs (ms.). University of Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203171608
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kutscher, Silvia
    2011 On the expression of spatial relations in Ardesen-Laz. Linguistic Discovery9(2). 49–77. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.394
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.394 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, George
    1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
    2019 Lexicalization patterns. In Robert Truswell (ed.), Oxford handbook of event structure, 395–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo Savoia
    2011 Reducing ‘case’ to denotational primitives: Nominal inflections in Albanian. Linguistic Variation11. 76–120. 10.1075/lv.11.1.03man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.11.1.03man [Google Scholar]
  30. Mateu, Jaume & Gemma Rigau
    2002 A minimalist account of conflation processes: Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. In Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals, 211–236. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.49.09mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.49.09mat [Google Scholar]
  31. Newell, Heather , Máire Noonan , Glyne Piggott & Lisa Travis
    2017The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198778264.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198778264.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pantcheva, Marina
    2011 Decomposing Path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. University of TromsøPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Picallo, Carme
    2014Linguistic variation in the Minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702894.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pretorius, Erin
    2017Spelling out P: A unified syntax of Afrikaans adpositions and V-particles. Utrecht University PhD dissertation. 10.5774/48‑0‑277
    https://doi.org/10.5774/48‑0‑277 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ramchand, Gillian C. & Peter Svenonius
    2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences46. 152–174. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  36. Real Puigdollers, Cristina
    2013 Lexicalisation by phase. The role of prepositions in argument structure and its crosslinguistic variation. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Svenonius, Peter
    2002 Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics5. 179–225. 10.1023/A:1021252206904
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021252206904 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2003 Limits on P: Filling in holes vs falling in holes. Nordlyd31(2). 431–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6848.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wiltschko, Martina
    2014The universal structure of categories. Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139833899
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139833899 [Google Scholar]
  41. Zeijlstra, Hedde
    2008 On the syntactic flexibility of formal features. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 143–174. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.132.06zei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.132.06zei [Google Scholar]
  42. Zimmerling, Anton V.
    2000 Обладать и быть рядом. In N. D. Arutjunova and I. B. Levontina Логический анализ языка. Языки пространств, 179–188. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Zwarts, Joost
    2005 Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy28(6). 739–79. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑2466‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2466-y [Google Scholar]
  44. Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter
    2000 Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information9(2). 169–211. 10.1023/A:1008384416604
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008384416604 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00039.int
Loading
  • Article Type: Introduction
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