References

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y., Dixon, R. M. V. & Onishi, M.
(2001) (Eds.), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A.
(1976) The VP complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 6, 1–21.Google Scholar
Ariel, M.
(1988) Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24(1), 65–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Accessibility theory. An overview. In T. J. M. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, W. Spooren (Eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2000) Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE 37, 25–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Eythórsson, Th.
(2009) The origin of the oblique subject construction: an Indo-European comparison. In V. Bubenik, J. Hewson & S. Rose (Eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages (pp. 179–193). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) What is a Subject: The Nature and Validity of Subject Tests. In J. Barðdal, N. Pat-El & S. M. Carey (Eds.), Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects. The Reykjavík-Eyjafjallajökull papers (pp. 257-274). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Smitherman, Th.
(2013) The Quest for Cognates: A Reconstruction of Oblique Subject Constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change, 3(1), 28–67.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smitherman, Th., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Jenset, G. B., McGillivray & B.
(2012) Reconstructing constructional semantics. The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language, 36(3), 511–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bary, C. & Haug, D. T. T.
(2011) Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4, 1–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buijs, M.
(2013) Participle. In G. K. Giannakis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Conti, L.
(2008) Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt. Historische Sprachforschung, 121, 94–113.Google Scholar
(2009) Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung, 122, 182–207.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. L.
(1988) Attic Greek Prose Syntax. 2 Volumes. After K. W. Krüger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Crespo, E., Conti, L., Maquieira, H.
(2003) Sintaxis del Griego Clásico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1990) Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, E. & Fedriani, C.
(2012) The argument structure of experience: experiential constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 342–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danesi, D., Johnson, C. A. & Barðdal, J.
(2018) Where Does the Modality of Ancient Greek Modal Verbs Come From? The Relation between Modality and Oblique Case Marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18, 45–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, A.
(1996) When Pro-Drop Languages Don’t. Overt Pronominal Subjects and Pragmatic Inference. In L. Dobrin, K. Singer & L. McNair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 33–47).Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S.
(1997) Are grammatical relations universal? In J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman, S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Th. & Barðdal, J.
(2005) Oblique subjects: a common Germanic inheritance. Language 81, 824–881. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, C.
(2009) The “Behaviour-Before-Coding” Principle: Further Evidence from Latin. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 94(2), 156–184.Google Scholar
(2014) Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M.
(2007) Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro: An interface approach to the linking of (null) pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(4), 691–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1983) Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In T. Givón (Ed.), Topic Continuity in Discourse. A quantitative cross-language study (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, D.
(2016) Classical Greek Syntax. Wackernagel’s Law in Herodotus. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2001) Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald et al. (Eds.), pp. 53–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haug, D. T. T.
(2010) PROIEL Guidelines for Annotation. Ms., University of Oslo, http://​folk​.uio​.no​/daghaug​/syntactic​_guidelines​.pdf
(2017) Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial adjuncts. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35(1), 99–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, H. H.
(1990) Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (Eds.), Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages (pp. 119–139). Stanford: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Humbert, J.
(1960) Syntaxe grecque. 3rd. ed. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jøhndal, M. L.
(2012) Non-finiteness in Latin. PhD Dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L.
(1976) Towards a universal definition of “Subject of”. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keydana, G.
(1997) Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
(2012) Greek Anaphora in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 12, 84–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M. H.
(1980) Bengali Dative Subjects. Lingua 51(4), 275–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kühner, R. & Gerth, B.
(1898; 1904) Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache3 , II-1; II–2. Hannover/Leipzig: Hannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Le Mair, E., Johnson, C. A., Frotscher, M., Eythórsson, Th. & Barðdal, J.
(2017) Position as a behavioral property of subjects. The case of Old Irish. Indogermanische Forschungen 122(1), 111–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lühr, R.
(2011) Zur Validität linguistischer Theorien in der Indogermanistik. In Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner (Eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (pp. 321–330). Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S.
(2010) Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In R. I. Kim, E. Riecken, N. Oettinger & M. J. Weiss (Eds.), Ex Anatolia lux (pp. 249–264). Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Masica, C. P.
(1976) Defining a Linguistic Area. South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I.
(2007) (Ed.). Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Onishi, M.
(2001) Non-canonically marked subjects and objects: Parameters and Properties. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. et al. (Eds.), pp. 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peels, S.
(2007) ἑωυτόν as a long-distance anaphor in Herodotus’ histories. Master Thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Petit, D.
(1999) *Su̯e- en grec ancien : la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique grecque et comparaison indo-européenne. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Pieroni, S.
(2007) Soggetto e riflessivo. In N. La Fauci & S. Pieroni (Eds.), Morfosintassi latina. Punti di vista (pp. 27–39). Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Pires, A.
(2006) The minimalist syntax of defective domains : gerunds and infinitives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Powell, J. E.
(1933) Studies on the Greek reflexive – Herodotus. The Classical Quarterly 27, 208–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1934) Studies on the Greek Reflexive – Thucydides. The Classical Quarterly 28, 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & Kulikov, L.
(2013) (Eds.). The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects, Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sevdali, Ch.
(2013) Case transmission beyond control and the role of Person. Journal of Historical Syntax, 24, 1–52.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A.
(2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torregrossa, J., Bongartz, C. & Tsimpli, I.
(2015) Testing accessibility: A cross-linguistic comparison of the syntax of referring expressions. Extended abstract for the Proceedings of the 89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America , https://​journals​.linguisticsociety​.org​/proceedings​/index​.php​/ExtendedAbs​/article​/view​/3046
Tronci, L.
(2012) Sur le réfléchi en grec ancien: notes préliminaires. In Dupraz, E. (Ed.), Anaphore et anaphoriques: variété des langues, variété des emplois (pp. 151–166). Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. & Filiaci, F.
(2004) First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 257–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, S., Kulikov, L. & Willems, K.
(2015) Oblique case-marking in Indo-Aryan experiencer constructions: historical roots and synchronic variation. Lingua 163, 23–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar