1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 45, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 45, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to offer a theoretical analysis of chorophorics, a recently proposed pro-formal category that can refer either to “places”, or to locations as arguments of spatial relations. It is suggested that chorophorics are a common category that displays heterogeneous morphological properties but homogeneous syntactic distribution and semantic interpretation. Evidence supporting this argument is offered via eight genetically unrelated languages. The evidence shows that at least three different types of chorophorics can be individuated across languages: chorophorics as a sub-type of prepositions, of case-marked nouns or of postpositions. A formal account is offered, based on a Lexical Syntax analysis. The account shows that chorophorics share a similar distribution with prepositional phrases and receive their “place” sense from their distribution in discourse contexts.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19072.urs
2020-11-03
2023-09-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.19072.urs
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adger, David
    2010 A minimalist theory of feature structures. InAnna Kibort & Greville Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 185–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577743.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577743.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alekseev, Mikhail E. & Ramazan N. Rajabov
    1991 Tsez Language. InMichael Job (ed.), Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol.3, 70–101. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 1993 Prerequisites to the formation of Tsez writing system. InGeorge Hewitt (ed.), Caucasian perspectives, 372–376. Munich: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Amelka, Felix & Stephen C. Levinson
    2007 Introduction – The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts. Linguistics45. 847–872.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, John M.
    2007 The grammar of names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297412.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297412.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Asbury, Anna
    2008 The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: University of UtrechtPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Asher, Nicholas. & Paul Sablayrolles
    1995 A typology and discourse semantics for motion verbs and spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics12. 163–209. 10.1093/jos/12.2.163
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  8. Aurnague, Michel
    1998 Basque genitives and part-whole relations: typical configurations and dependences. Carnets de Grammaire Rapports Internes de l’ERSS1. 1–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Avolio, Francesco
    1992 Il problema dei questionari e la metodologia d’inchiesta nei primi rilevamenti per il vocabolario dei dialetti della Sabina e dell’Aquilano (VDSA). ALIR1. 557–575.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1993 Problemi di interlinguisticità dialettale. Contatti e reazioni linguistiche sul ‘confine’ mediano-meridionale: modellizazione sabina e ‘abruzzesità’ vestina con particolare riguardo al sinecismo aquilano. Sassari: Università di SassariPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 Tra Abruzzo e Sabina. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bandecchi, Valeria
    2013 Lexicalization of the Manner Component: Evidence from Italian. Dublin: University College DublinPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Blake, Barry J.
    2001 Case, 3rd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164894
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164894 [Google Scholar]
  14. Blevins, Jim P.
    2005 Word-based declensions in Estonian. InGert Booij, & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Boone, Enrico
    2014 The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments. Leiden: Leiden UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Botwinik, Irena & Arhonto Terzi
    2006 Greek and Hebrew locative prepositional phrases: A unified case-driven account. Lingua118. 399–424. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Botwinik, Irena
    2008 Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. InAnna Asbury, Berit Gehrke, Jakub Dotlačil, & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 331–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.120.17bot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.17bot [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010 A closer look at the Hebrew Construct and Free locative PPs: the analysis of mi-locatives. InDennis Kurzon & Silvia Adler (eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives, 85–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2004 The category P: Features, projections, interpretation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bowerman, Melissa & Eric Pederson
    1992 Cross-linguistic studies of spatial semantic organization. InPenelope Brown, Gunter Senft & Linda Wheeldon (eds.), Annual report of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 53–56. Nimejgen: Max Planck Institute Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Breen, Gavan & Rob Pensalfini
    1999 Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry30. 1–25. 10.1162/002438999553940
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553940 [Google Scholar]
  22. Brinton, Laurie J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  23. Brugman, Claudia
    1988 The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Caha, Pavel
    2009 The nanosyntax of case. Trømso: Trømso UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Canac-Marquis, Marie
    1986 Sur le statut categorique et syntactique de P en Fon. InClaire Lefevbre & Jonathan Kaye (eds.), Études syntactiques, morphologiques et phonologiques. Research prepared for SSHRCC, FCAR and PAFAC on the project Recherche de Haiti-Fon, 41–53. Montréal: Université du Quebec à Montréal.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chang, Suk-Jin
    1996 Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Chappell, Hilary & Alain Peyraube
    2008 Chinese localizers: Diachrony and some typological considerations. InDan Xu (ed.), Space in languages of China, 15–37. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑8321‑1_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8321-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Choi-Jonin, Injoo
    2008 Particles and postpositions in Korean. InDennis Kurzon & Silvia Adler (eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 74), 133–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.74.08cho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.74.08cho [Google Scholar]
  29. Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi
    (eds.) 2010 The cartography of syntactic structures, vol.6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Coffin, Edna A. & Shmuel Bolozky
    (eds.) 2005 A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511811081
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811081 [Google Scholar]
  31. Comrie, B. & M. Polinsky
    1998 The great Daghestanian case hoax. InAnna Siewierska & Jung Jae Song (eds.), Case, typology and grammar: In honor ofBarry J. Blake. 95–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.38.09com
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.38.09com [Google Scholar]
  32. Comrie, Bernard
    1988 General features of the Uralic languages. InSinor Denis (ed.), The Uralic languages, 451–477. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Creary, Lewis, Jean Mark Gawron & John Nerbonne
    1987 Towards a theory of locative reference. InJonathan Hirschberg (ed.), Proceedings of the ASL 1987, 34–40. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Cresswell, Maxwell J.
    1978 Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy2(1). 1–41. 10.1007/BF00365129
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00365129 [Google Scholar]
  35. Croft, William
    2003 Typology and universals, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Cysouw, Michael
    2005 Quantitative methods in typology. InGabriel Altmann, Reinhard Köhler & Ron Piotrowski (eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook, 559–577. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Cysouw, Michael, & Diana Forker
    2009 Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Non-spatial use of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language85. 588–617. 10.1353/lan.0.0147
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0147 [Google Scholar]
  38. Danon, Gabi
    2011 Definiteness agreement with PP modifiers. InSharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon & Susan Rothstein (eds.), Generative approaches to Hebrew linguistics, 70–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. DeLancey, Scott
    2005 Adpositions as a non-universal category. InZygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David Rood (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.72.10del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.10del [Google Scholar]
  40. Djamouri, Redouane, Paul Waltraud & John Whitman
    2013 Postpositions vs. prepositions in Mandarin Chinese: The articulation of disharmony. InTheresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, 69–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  41. Dryer, Matthew
    2013 Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase. InMatthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: wals.info/chapter/85, last access12 July 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Enç, Mürvet
    1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry22, 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Enfield, Nicholas, Asifa Majid & Miriam van Staden
    2006 Cross-linguistic categorization of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences28. 137–147. 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Erelt, Mati
    (ed.) 2003 Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ernst, Thomas
    1988 Chinese postpositions? – Again. Journal of Chinese Linguistics16. 219–245.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Evans, Vyvyan
    2009 Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. InVyvyan Evans & Stefanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 50–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.06eva
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.06eva [Google Scholar]
  47. Evans, Nicholas
    2012 Semantic typology. InJ. J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 504–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fábregas, Antonio
    2012 A guide to IL and SL in Spanish: Properties, problems and proposals. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics1. 3–61. 10.7557/1.1.2.2296
     https://doi.org/10.7557/1.1.2.2296 [Google Scholar]
  49. Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
    2018 The semantic map Model State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass12(9). 1–33. 10.1111/lnc3.12270
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12270 [Google Scholar]
  50. Giammarco, Ernesto
    1973 Abruzzo dialettale. Pescara: Istituto di Studi Abruzzesi.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Glinert, Lewis
    1991 Modern Hebrew: An essential grammar, 3rd edn.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203329412
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203329412 [Google Scholar]
  52. Grimes, Barbara F.
    (ed.) 1996 Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 13th edn.Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Habicht, Külli
    2001 On the genesis and loss of the adposition rinnas (‘abreast, beside’) in Literary Estonian. InIlona Tragel (ed.), Papers in Estonian cognitive linguistics, 71–89. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hagège, Claude
    2010 Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2013 Chorophorics, or the difference between place as an entity and place as a position in space. InTim Thornes (ed.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honour of Scott DeLancey, 27–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.103.02hag
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.103.02hag [Google Scholar]
  56. Haider, Hubert
    2013 Head directionality – in syntax and morphology. InAntonio Fábregas, Jaume Mateu & Michael Putnam (eds.), The handbook of parameters, 68–83. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser
    2002 Prolegomena 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]
  58. Harkins, Jean & Dan P. Wilkins
    1994 Mparntwe Arrernte and the search for lexical universals. InCliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 285–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.25.15har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.25.15har [Google Scholar]
  59. Haspelmath, Martin
    2003 Adpositions. InWilliam Frawley (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, 2nd edn, 407–430. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2007 The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction (Studies in the Evolution of Language 9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Heine, Bernd
    2003 Grammaticalization. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  62. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  63. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition41. 9–45. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
  66. Jürine, Anni
    2015 The development of complex postpositions in Estonian: A case of grammaticalization via lexicalization. Tartu: University of TartuPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Kang, Yungkyoung
    2012 A cognitive linguistics approach to the semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Washington, D.C.: Washington Georgetown UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kibrik, Andrej
    2013 Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Koopman, Hilda
    2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. InHilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203171608
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  70. Koptjevkaja-Tamm, Maria
    2008 Approaching lexical typology. InMartine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, 3–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.106.03kop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106.03kop [Google Scholar]
  71. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    2012 New directions in lexical typology. Linguistic Typology12, 373–394.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Krifka, Manfred
    1998 The origins of telicity. InS. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lefevbre, Claire & Anne-Marie Brusseau
    2002 A grammar of Fongbè. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Lefevbre, Claire
    1989 Complex prepositional phrases: another case of serialisation. InClaire Lefevbre (ed.) Études syntactiques, morphologiques et phonologiques. Research prepared for SSHRCC, FCAR and PAFAC on the project Recherche de Haiti-Fon, 278–293. Montréal: Université du Quebec à Montréal.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 1990 Establishing a category P in Fon. The Journal of Western African Languages21. 21–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Lehmann, Christian
    1985 Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 2012 Converse Categorization Strategies. InMaria Koptjevkaja–Tamm & Martine Vanhove (eds.), New directions in lexical typology. Special issue of Linguistics50(3). 467–494. 10.1515/ling‑2012‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  78. Lestrade, Sander
    2010 The space of case. Nijmegen: Radboud University NijmegenPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Levinson, Stephen & Sergio Meira
    2003 Natural concepts in the Spatial Topological Domain – Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language79. 485–516. 10.1353/lan.2003.0174
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0174 [Google Scholar]
  80. Levinson, Stephen C. & Dan P. Wilkins
    (eds.) 2006 Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486753
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486753 [Google Scholar]
  81. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1994 Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics32. 791–856. 10.1515/ling.1994.32.4‑5.791
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.791 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2003 Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity, vol.5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
  83. Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson
    1982 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Libert, Alan R.
    2013 Adpositions and other parts of speech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Liu, Feng-Hsi
    1998 A clitic analysis of locative particles. Journal of Chinese Linguistics26. 48–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer
    (ed.) 2011 The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Mateu, Jaume
    2002 Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Mateu, Jaume, & Laia Amadas
    2001 Syntactic tools for semantic construal. Paper presented at1st Conference on Tools in Linguistic Theory. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht, 6–8 July 2001. Available atfilcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/reports/pdf/GGT-01-12.pdf, last access12 July 2020.
  89. Merchant, Jason
    2001 The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy27. 661–738. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑7378‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3 [Google Scholar]
  91. Nam, Senghuo
    1995 The semantics of locative prepositional phrases in English. Los Angeles: UCLAPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Narrog, Heiko & Seongha Rhee
    2001 Grammaticalization of space in Korean and Japanese. InMartine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Shared grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages, 170–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Polinsky, Maria
    2015 Tsez syntax: A description. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Rakhilina, Elena & Reznikova, Teresa
    2016 A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. InPauli Juvonen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The lexical typology of semantic shifts, 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110377675‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377675-004 [Google Scholar]
  95. Rhee, Seongha
    2004 A comparative analysis of grammaticalization of English and Korean adpositions. Studies in Modern Grammar40. 209–233.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Rygaloff, Alexis
    1973 Grammaire elementaire du chinois. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Sag, Ivan, Hans C. Boas & Paul Kay
    2012 Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. InHans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–189. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Siloni, Tal
    2002 Construct states at the PF-interface. InPierre Pica & Johann Rooryck (eds.), The yearbook of language variations1, 229–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Song, Jae Jung
    2005 The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Stolz, Thomas
    2007 Lexical typology, lexical contact and creolization. InWiltrud Mihatsch & Monika Sokol (eds.), Language contact and language change in the Caribbean and beyond, 19–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze
    2017 When zero is just enough …In support of a special toponymic grammar in Maltese. Folia Linguistica51. 453–482. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0016 [Google Scholar]
  102. Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Christel Stolz
    2014 The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1524/9783050065304
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050065304 [Google Scholar]
  103. Svenonius, Peter
    2006 The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd33. 49–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 2010 Spatial P in English. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structures, vol.6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  105. Svorou, Soteris
    1994 The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.25 [Google Scholar]
  106. Talmy, Leonard
    2000 Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: the MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Tauli, Valter
    1973 Standard Estonian grammar. Phonology, morphology, word formation, vol.1. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 8). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2005 Lexicalization and grammaticalization. InAlan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job, & Peter R. Lutzeier (eds.), Lexikologie / Lexicology, vol.2, 1702–1712. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Tseng, Jesse
    2000 The representation and selection of prepositions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Tyler, Andrea, & Vyvyan Evans
    2003 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  111. Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Haiping Long
    2018a Spatial categories in Aquilan. Dialectologia.& Geolinguistica26. 1–29. 10.1515/dialect‑2018‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/dialect-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  112. 2018b On spatial nouns and adpositions in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics (특집호) 81. 193–226. 10.20865/20188109
     https://doi.org/10.20865/20188109 [Google Scholar]
  113. 2020 Chorophorics in the Aquilan dialect. Studia Linguistica 74 (2) 471–505. 10.1111/stul.12132
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12132 [Google Scholar]
  114. van der Zee, Emile
    2000 Why we talk about bulging barrels and spinning spirals: Curvature representation and lexical interface. InEmile van der Zee & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces, 70–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Vandeloise, Claude
    2010 Genesis of spatial terms. InVyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions, 171–192. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Veismann, Ann
    2009 Eesti kaas– ja määrsõnade semantika võimalusi [Semantics of Estonian adpositions and adverbs] (Dissertationes Linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 11). Tartu: Tartu University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Verkuyl, Henk & Joost Zwarts
    1992 Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: The motion of path. Linguistics30. 483–511. 10.1515/ling.1992.30.3.483
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.3.483 [Google Scholar]
  118. Vignuzzi, Ugo
    1997 Lazio, Umbria and the Marche. InMartin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 311–321. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Vincent, Nigel
    1999 The evolution of c-structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo–European to Romance. Linguistics37. 1111–1153. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1111
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1111 [Google Scholar]
  120. von Heusinger, Klaus
    2012 Specificity. InClaudia Maierborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1025–1058. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Wilkins, Dan P.
    2000 Towards an Arrernte grammar of space. InStephen C. Levinson & Dan P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space, 24–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 1995 More than just wishful thinking: The survival of Arrernte worldview is historical fact, not romantic fiction. Oceania Newsletter15. 8–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 1997 The verbalization of motion events in Arrernte (Central Australia). InEve Clark (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual child language research forum, 295–308. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 1989 Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National UniversityPhD dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Wunderlich, Dieter
    1991 How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics?Linguistics29. 591–621. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.4.591 [Google Scholar]
  126. Zhang, Niina
    2017 Adpositions. InRint Sybesma, Wolfgang Behr, Yueguo Gu, Zev Handel, James Huang & James Myers (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Chinese language and linguistics, 60–90. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Zwarts, Joost
    1997 Vectors as relative positions. Journal of Semantics14. 57–87. 10.1093/jos/14.1.57
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  128. 2008 Aspects of a typology of direction. InSusan Rothstein (eds.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects, 79–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.110.05zwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.110.05zwa [Google Scholar]
  129. 2010a A hierarchy of locations: Evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions and cases. Linguistics48. 983–1009. 10.1515/ling.2010.032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.032 [Google Scholar]
  130. 2010b Forceful prepositions. InVyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, 193–214. London: Equinox Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Zwarts, Joost, & Yoad Winter
    2000 Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information9. 169–211. 10.1023/A:1008384416604
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008384416604 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19072.urs
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): chorophorics; lexical typology; spatial adpositions; spatial nouns

Most Cited

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