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. 217318
References

References

Bosque, Ignacio
1999“El sintagma adjetival. Modificadores y complementos del adjetivo. Adjetivo y participio.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 217-310. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia
1981Story of Over. MA thesis, University of California at Berkeley. (Published in 1988 as The story of Over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.)Google Scholar
Cano Aguilar, Rafael
1981Estructuras sintácticas transitivas en el español actual. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conti Jiménez, Carmen
2004Papeles semánticos (instrumento y comitativo). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Cornelis, Louise H.
1997Passive and perspective. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991Semantics categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1998“Event structure in argument linking.” In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. by Miriam Butt, and Wilhelm Geuder, 21-63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Kock, Josse, and Carmen Gómez Molina
1990Las formas pronominales del verbo y la pasiva. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1984“Notes on Agentivity and Causation.” Studies in Language 8 (2): 181-213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole
1996“Towards a Cognitive Account of the Use of the Prepositions Por and Para in Spanish.” In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. by Eugene Casad, 249-318. New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002“A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish.” In The Nominative/Accusative. Case and Grammatical Relations across Language Boundaries, ed. by Kristin Davidse, and Béatrice Lamiroy, 81-130. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003“La variable expresión del agente en las construcciones pasivas.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica LI 2: 373-416.Google Scholar
2004“Verbos de respuesta: análisis léxico-construccional.” In Estudios de Lingüística: El verbo, ed. by José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia, and Carmen Marimón Llorca, 119-165. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
2005“El análisis de corpus al servicio de la gramática funcional y cognoscitiva. Hacia una interpretación de la alternancia lineal sujeto-verbo/verbo-sujeto.” In Variación sintáctica en español: un reto para las teorías de la sintaxis, ed. by Gabriele Knauer, and Valeriano Bellosta von Colbe, 51-74. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
2008“Spanish (de)queísmo: part/whole alternation and viewing arrangement.” In Asymmetric Events, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 51-84. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole, and Béatrice Lamiroy
1996“Towards a typology of the Spanish dative.” In The Dative. Descriptive Studies, ed. by William Van Belle, and Willy Van Langendonck, 73-117. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole
1999“La subordinación sustantiva: Las subordinadas enunciativas en los complementos verbales.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1965-2081. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
DeMello, George
1997“Verbo pronominal con por + agente.” In Lengua escrita y habla culta en América y España, ed. by Josse De Kock, and George DeMello, 127-133. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
De Miguel, Elena
1999“El aspecto léxico.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 2977-3060. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Dowty, David
1991“Thematic protoroles and argument selection.” Language 67 (3): 547-619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
1987“The discourse basis of ergativity.” Language 63: 805–852. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Ramírez, Salvador
1986Gramática española. 4. El verbo y la oración. Volumen ordenado y completado por I. Bosque. Madrid: Arco / Libros S.A.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982“Frame semantics.” In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin. Reprinted in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (2006), ed. by D. Geeraerts, 373-400. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1988“The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 35-55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Kay O'Connor
1988“Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.” Language 64 (3): 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García, Erica
1975The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis: the Spanish Pronoun System. Amsterdam/New York: North-Holland/American Elsevier.Google Scholar
García-Miguel, José María
1995Las relaciones gramaticales entre predicado y participantes. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens
2007“Introducing Cognitive Linguistics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 3-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1993The pragmatics of voice: functional and typological aspects. Reader 2, IFOTT lectures Amsterdam, May 24-28.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, John N.
1975“On the Frequency of Passive Constructions in Modern Spanish.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 52 (4): 345-362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, Annette
1986Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson
1980“Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56 (2): 251-299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1985“Passive in the world's languages.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol.1 (Clause Structure), ed. by T. Shopen, 243-281. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Kitillä, Seippo
2002“Remarks on the basic transitive sentence.” Language Sciences 24: 107-130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1977 “Linguistic Gestalts.” Papers form the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society , 236-287.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1982“Space Grammar, Analysability, and the English Passive.” Language 58 (1): 22-80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Langacker, Ronald W., and Pamela Munro
1975“Passives and their meaning.” Language 51: 789-830. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
1995“Prototypicality and Agenthood in Indo-European.” In Historical Linguistics 1993. Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16-20 August 1993, ed. by Henning Andersen, 259-268. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 “Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54/1: 35-51.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1991Natural language and universal grammar. Essays in linguistic theory, volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo
1999A media voz. Problemas conceptuales del clítico se. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
2002“Objective and subjective datives.” Cognitive Linguistics 13 (1): 1-65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, Mª Antonia
1979Las construcciones pronominales en español. Paradigma y desviaciones. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Mendikoetxea, Amaya
1999a“Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1575-1633. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
1999b“Construcciones con se: Medias, pasivas e impersonales.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1631-1722. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Nishida, Chiyo
1994“The Spanish Reflexive Clitic se as an Aspectual Class Marker.” Linguistics 32 (3): 425-458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, Yoshiki
1993“Agentivity in cognitive grammar.” In Conceptualizations and mental processing in language, ed. by Richard A. Geiger, and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 487-530. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea
2000Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Premack, David, and Ann James Premack
1995“Intention as psychological cause.” In Causal cognition. A multidisciplinary debate, ed. by D. Sperber, D. Premack, and A.J. Premack, 185-199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice
1999Cases and Thematic Roles. Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1996Constructions and the Syntax-Discourse Interface. University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter
1985“Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality.” In The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought, ed. by W. Wolf Paprotte, and R. Dirven, 177-207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española
s.d. Banco de datos CREA (Corpus de referencia del español actual). http://​www​.rae​.es [on line consultation October 2008 - September 2010].
Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española
2009Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Sánchez López, Cristina
2002Las construcciones con se. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak M.
1995Cognitive space and linguistic case. Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1985“Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis.” Language 61: 821-848. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1988Passive and Voice (Typological Studies in Language, Volume 16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1988“Force dynamics in language and cognition.” Cognitive Science 12: 49-100. (Expanded version published in Leonard Talmy 2000, 409-470.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
19952. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku
1985“Remarks on transitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 21: 385-396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude
1986L'espace en francais. Paris: Editions Du Seuil.Google Scholar
1991Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1994“Methodology and Analysis of the Preposition in.” Cognitive Linguistics 5 (2): 157-184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
2007“Iconicity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 394-418. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Oosten, Jeanne
1986The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Bloomington: IULC.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria
2007“A usage-based approach to prototypical transitivity.” In On Interpreting Construction Schemas. From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality, ed. by Nicole Delbecque, and Bert Cornillie, 17-38. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2005“Relevance theory.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Gregory L. Ward, and Laurence R. Horn, 607-632. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M.
1987 “Constructions in monostratal syntax.” Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 389-401.