Article published in:
Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
Edited by Ludovic De Cuypere, Clara Vanderschueren and Gert De Sutter
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31] 2017
► pp. 165194
References

References

Agresti, Alan
2007An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New Jersey: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya
1998VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. PhD dissertation. London: University College of London.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus, and Jana Häussler
2010 “Word Order in German: A Corpus Study.” Lingua 120: 717–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Joseph
2004 “Non-nominative Subjects in Comparison.” In Non-nominative Subjects vol. 1, ed. by Peri Bhaskararao, and Karumuri V. Subbarao, 49–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi
1988 “Psych-verbs and θ – theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Stefan Zysset, Angela D. Friederici, D. Yves von Cramon, and Matthias Schlewewsky
2005 “ ‘Who Does What to Whom?’ The Neural Basis of Argument Hierarchies during Language Comprehension.” NeuroImage 26: 221–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation.” In Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base, ed. by Sam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa
2009 “On the Semantic and Contextual Factors that Determine Topic Selection in Italian and Spanish.” The Linguistic Review 26: 261–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1991 “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection.” Language 67: 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engelberg, Stefan
2015 “Gespaltene Stimulus-Argumente bei Psych-Verben. Quantitative Verteilungsdaten als Indikator für die Dynamik sprachlichen Wissens über Argumentstrukturen.” In Argumentstruktur – Valenz – Konstruktionen, ed. by S. Engelberg, Meike Meliss, Kristel Proost, and Edeltraut Winkler, 469–492. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert
2000 “Optimal Exceptions.” In Lexicon in Focus, ed. by Barbara Stiebels, and Dieter Wunderlich, 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason
2013The Semantics of Syntactic Choice, an Analysis of English Emotion Verbs. PhD dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther
1989Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990Argument Structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartigan, John A., and Pamela M. Hartigan
1985 “The Dip Test of Unimodality.” Annals of Statistics 13.1: 70–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2001 “Non-canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages.” In Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, and Masayuki Onishi, 53–83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haupt, Friederike S., Matthias Schlesewsky, Dietmar Roehm, Angela D. Friederici, and Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
2008 “The Status of Subject-Object Reanalyses in Language Comprehension Architecture.” Journal of Memory and Language 59: 54–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula
1981Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwarts-sprache. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee A.
1987 “The Case of the Intransitive Subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi).” Lingua 71:103–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni
2011 “Causatives across Components.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 657–704. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Institut für Deutsche Sprache
1991–2017COSMAS I/II Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. http://​www​. ids​-mannheim​.de​/cosmas2/.
2010Deutsches Referenzkorpus / Archiv der Korpora geschriebener Gegenwartssprache 2010-I (Release vom 02.03.2010). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. http://​www​.ids​-mannheim​.de​/DeReKo.
Keller, Frank, and Antonella Sorace
2003 “Gradient Auxiliary Aelection and Impersonal Passivization in German: an Experimental Investigation.” Journal of Linguistics 39.1: 57–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein Katharina, and Silvia Kutscher
2002 “Psych-verbs and Lexical Economy.” Theorie des Lexikons 122. Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knut
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan
2010The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1991 “Predicate Classes and participation .” In Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, Hansjakob Seiler, and Waldfried Premper, 183–239. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen
1977 “Zum Einfluß von ‘Agens’ auf die Wortstellung des Deutschen.” In Grammatik und interdisziplinäre Bereiche der Linguistik. Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Aachen 1976, ed. by Hans W. Viethen, Wolf-Dietrich Bald, and Konrad Sprengel, 133–142. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne
2015 “Explaining the Link between Agentivity and Non-culminating Causation.” Proceedings of SALT 25: 246–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Fabienne, and Florian Schäfer
2017Sublexical modality in defeasable causative verbs. In Modality across Syntactic Categories, Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero, and Andrés Salanova, 87–108. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1995Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Dirk Speelman
2015 “Argument Alternations of the Dutch Psych Verbs. A Corpus Investigation.” Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
2004 “Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariaton bei psychischen Verben.” In Semantische Rollen, ed. by Rolf Kailuweit, and Martin Hummel, 377–401. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2012 “Animacy, Generalized Semantic Roles, and Differential Object Marking.” In Case, Word Order, and Prominence. Interacting Cues in Language Production and Comprehension, ed. by Monique Lamers, Peter de Swart, 65–90. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Tal Siloni
2005 “The Lexicon-syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other arity Operations.” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
2001Experiencing Derivations. SALT lecture, New York.Google Scholar
2002 “The Theta System – an Overview.” Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290.Google Scholar
Roeper, Tom
1987 “Implicit Arguments and the Head-complement Relation.” Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310.Google Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph, Barbara Hemforth, and Lars Konieczny
2000 “Linking Syntactic Functions with Thematic Roles: Psych Verbs and the Resolution of Subject-Object Ambiguity.” In German Sentence Processing, ed. by Barbara. Hemforth, and Lars Konieczny, 95–135. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2004 “Gradience at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface: Evidence from Auxiliary Selection and Implications for Unaccusativity.” In The Unaccusativity Puzzle, ed. by A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, and M. Everaert, 243–268. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1976 “Semantic Causative Types.” In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by M. Shibatani, 43–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Temme, Anne, and Elisabeth Verhoeven
2016 “Verb Class, Case, and Order: A Cross-linguistic Experiment on Non-nominative Experiencers.” Linguistcs 54.4: 769–813.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr., and Randy LaPolla
1997 “Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr., and David P. Wilkins
1996 “The Case for ‘Effector’: Case Roles, Agents, and Agency Revisited.” In Grammatical Constructions: their Form and Meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth
2009 “Subjects, Agents, Experiencers, and Animates in Competition: Modern Greek Argument Order.” Linguistische Berichte 219: 355–376.Google Scholar
2010 “Agentivity and Stativity in Experiencer Verbs: Implications for a Typology of Predicate Classes.” Linguistic Typology 14: 213–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Thematic Prominence and Animacy Asymmetries. Evidence from a Cross-linguistic Production Study.” Lingua 143:129–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Thematic Asymmetries Do Matter! A Corpus Study of Word Order in German.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27.1: 45–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
1997 “Cause and the Structure of Verbs.” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Fritz-Huechante, Paola, Elisabeth Verhoeven & Julian A. Rott
2020. Agentivity and non-culminating causation in the psych domain: Cross-linguistic evidence from Spanish and Korean. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.