Article published in:
Non-Nuclear Cases
Edited by Nicole Delbecque, Karen Lahousse and Willy Van Langendonck
[Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 6] 2014
► pp. 120
Abraham, Werner
2001“Gibt es im Deutschen eine Klasse von Präpositionen mit Doppelrektion?” Deutsche Sprache . Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 29 (2001): 63-75.Google Scholar
2003“The myth of doubly governing prepositions in German.” In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, ed. by Erin Shay, and Uwe Seibert, 19-38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John Travis
2006Argument/Oblique Alternations and the Structure of Lexical Meaning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stanford.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1998“Event Structure in Argument Linking.” In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by Miriam Butt, and Wilhelm Geuder, 97- 134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1989The Theory of Functional Grammar, part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2005Duden. Die Grammatik 7. Völlig neu erarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
1977“The Case for Case Reopened.” In Syntax and Semantics VIII: Grammatical Relations, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerrold M. Sadock, 59-81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Paul Kay
1993Construction Grammar Coursebook. University of California at Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard
1992Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laffut, An
2006Three-Participant Constructions in English: A Functional-Cognitive Approach to Caused Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991aFoundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991bConcept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000“A dynamic usage-based model.” In Usage-based models of language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2009“Constructions and constructional meaning.” In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, and Stéphanie Pourcel, 225–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leys, Odo
1989“Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen.” Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 17 (1989): 97-113.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B
1997Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2002a“Ergative and accusative patterning in Warrwa.” In The nominative & accusative and their counterparts, ed. by Kristin Davidse, and Béatrice Lamiroy, 285-317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1920Deutsche Grammatik. Band IV, Teil IV: Syntax (zweite Hälfte). Halle an der Saale: Verlag von Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L
1982Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1989Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin
2010“Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity.” In Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, ed. by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 21-38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Bert Cornillie, Dagmar Divjak, and Karel Van den Eynde
2005 “Degrees of clause integration. From endotactic to exotactic subordination in Dutch.” Linguistics 43/3: 471-529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. I: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Belle, William, and Willy Van Langendonck
1996The Dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van den Eynde, Karel, Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen, Piet Mertens, and Lene Schoesler
2002“Distributional syntactic analysis and valency. Basic notions, procedures and applications of the Pronominal Approach.” In The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and Information into the 21st century Volume 2. Computability of language and computer applications, ed. by Bruce E. Nevin, 163-202. Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy, and William Van Belle
1998The Dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert, and Randy J. LaPolla
1997Syntax. Sructure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffman, and Bruno Strecker
1997Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar