Article published in:
Advances in Research on Semantic Roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 133171
References

References

Adams, James N.
2011Late Latin. In J. Clackson (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Latin Language, 257–283. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip & Andrea Nuti
2010Possession. In P. Cuzzolin & Ph. Baldi (eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, 239–388. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baños Baños, José Miguel
1996Litteras Neroni / ad Neronem mittere: ¿alternancia dativo / ad + acus.? In A. Agud, J.A. Fernández Delgado & A. Ramos Guerreira (eds.), Las lenguas de corpus y sus problemas lingüísticos, 217–236. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
1998Sintaxis y semántica del dativo objeto indirecto: su concurrencia con ad-acus. en latín clásico. In M.E. Torrego (ed.), Nombres y funciones: estudios de sintaxis griega y latina, 11–41. Madrid: U.A.M. Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
2000Vulgarismos sintácticos en Plauto (II): quae ad patrem vis nuntiari . In B. García Hernandez (ed.), Latín vulgar y tardío, 1–15. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
2009Dativo. In J.M. Baños Baños (ed.), Sintaxis del latín clásico, 185–209. Madrid: Liceus Ediciones.Google Scholar
Bastardas Parera, Juan
1953Particularidades sintácticas del latín medieval. Barcelona: Escuela de Filología.Google Scholar
Bennett, Charles Edwin
1914Syntax of Early Latin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
2001[1994]Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blume, Kerstin
1998A contrastive analysis of interaction verbs with dative complements. Linguistics 36 (2). 253–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela
1999Late Latin pleonastic reflexives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Transactions of the Philological Society 97(1). 103–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A.
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. A.
1966Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christol, Alain
1998Marquage oblique des actants. In J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 457–523. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
1997Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Densusianu, Ovide
1938Histoire de la langue roumaine II. Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon.C.
1989[1997]The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd revised edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas
1953Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin
2010Espace et grammaticalisation – L’évolution sémantique des prépositions dans les langues romanes. Sarrebruck: Editions Universitaires Européennes. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2010Between verb semantics and interpersonal meanings in participant realization. Paper presented at the Workshop on Variation and Change in Argument Realization, Naples and Capri, May 27-30, 2010.
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goyens, Michèle, Lamiroy, Béatrice & Ludo Melis
2002Déplacement et repositionnement de la préposition à en français. Linguisticae Investigationes 25(2). 275- 310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
(ed.) 1985Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haudry, Jean
1968Les emplois doubles du datif et la fonction du datif indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 63. 141–159.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist
1936Lateinische Umgangssprache. Winter: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Anton Szantyr
1972 [1965]Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck (= Leumann-Hoffmann-Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik , 2nd edn.).Google Scholar
Jacob, Daniel
1991Dativ im Französischen? Zur Funktionsweise und Semantik der Ergänzungsklasse ‘à + NP’. In P. Koch & Th. Krefeld (eds.), Connexiones Romanicae: Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen, 157–186. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1966A la recherche de l’essence du langage. In Problèmes du langage, Diogène 51: 22–38. English translation 1971, “Quest for the Essence of Language”, in Roman Jakobson, Selective writings, vol. 2: Word and Language, 345–359. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2005A typology of involuntary agent constructions. Word 56. 341–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006On distinguishing between ‘recipient’ and ‘beneficiary’ in Finnish. In M. Helasvuo & L. Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish, 129–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski
2011. In S. Kittilä, K. Västi & J. Ylikoski (eds.), Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles. Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Martin Haspelmath
1998Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues de l’Europe. In J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 525–606. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kühner, Raphael & Carl Stegmann
1976Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1964The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1992[1991]Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1998Actancy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1991Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION. In H. Seiler & W. Premper (eds.), Partizipation: das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, 183–239. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2006Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In T. Tsunoda & T. Kageyama (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations. Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani, 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Bengt
1961Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze. Beiträge zur frühmittelalterlichen Latinität. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E.
2007[1985]Sentences as combinations of clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn., 372–420. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2010Adverbials. In Ph. Baldi & P. Cuzzolin (eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, vol. 2, 19–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphor. In S. Luraghi & H. Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on Semantic Roles, 101–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, Eric
2006Quirky subjects in Old French. Studia Linguistica 60(3). 282–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin
1996A Linguistic History of Italian. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Menge, Hermann
2007Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik, völlig neu bearbeitet von Thorsten Burkard und Markus Schauer, 3. Auflage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Molinelli, Piera
1998Dai casi alle preposizioni in latino: analisi sociolinguistica e spiegazione tipologica. In P. Ramat & E. Roma (eds.), Sintassi storica, 147–166. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newman, John
1996Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler
2011Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert
1994Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1990The development of cases and adpositions in Latin. In H. Pinkster & I. Genee (eds.), Unity in Diversity, 195–209. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prandi, Michele
2004The Building Blocks of Meaning: Ideas for a Philosophical Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Transferring constructions: Grammatical relations and roles. In M. Papi Bertuccelli, A. Bertacca & S. Bruti (eds.), Threads in the Complex Fabric of Language: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi, 293–305. Pisa: Felici Editore.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael J.
1993The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 164–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1974[1916]Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Critical edition by T. de Mauro, Paris: Payot 1972 Engl. transl.: Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana / Collins.Google Scholar
Selig, Maria
1991Inhaltskonturen des ‘Dativs’: Zur Ablösung des lateinischen Dativs durch ad und zur differentiellen Objektmarkierung. In P. Koch & Th. Krefeld (eds.), Connexiones Romanicae: Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen, 187–211. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Serbat, Guy
1996Grammaire fondamentale du latin. Tome IV, L’emploi des cas en latin, Vol. 1. Louvain et Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Steinitz, Renate
1969Adverbial-Syntax. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Sznajder, Lyliane
2012Dixit autem serpens ad mulierem / Mulieri quoque dixit: la double expression de l’allocutaire dans les propositions introductrices de discours directs dans la Vulgate. F. Biville, M. Lhommé & D. Vallat (eds.), LATIN VULGAIRE-LATIN TARDIF IX, Actes du IXe colloque international ‘latin vulgaire – latin tardif,’ (Lyon, 2-6 septembre 2009), 271–290. Lyon: Collection de la maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 49, Série Linguistique et Philologie 8.Google Scholar
Théoret, Michel
1982Les discours de Cicéron: La concurrence du tour casuel et du tour prépositionnel. Montreal: Presse de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko
1963Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Van Hoecke, Willy
1996The Latin dative. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative, Vol. I: Descriptive Studies, 3–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
1998The dative in Latin and the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative, Vol.II: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies, 221–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Villar, Francisco
1981Dativo y locativo en el singular de la flexión nominal indoeuropea. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Woodcock, Eric Charles
1959A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto
2000Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar