Article published in:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:4 (2019) ► pp. 463508
References

References

Allen, Cynthia L.
1986Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22. 375–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
ASD = An Anglo-Saxon dictionary
1966Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
1999Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. In Inger Haskå & Carin Sandqvist (eds.), Alla tiders språk. En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999, 9–23. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 55). Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk [Department of Scandinavian Languages].Google Scholar
[ p. 500 ]
2000Oblique subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 37. 25–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001aThe role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian conference of linguistics 2000, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2001bCase in Icelandic – A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. (Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 57). Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
2004The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology, 105–137. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2008Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32 (2006) 467–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Carlee Arnett, Stephen Mark Carey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Gard B. Jenset, Guus Kroonen & Adam Oberlin
2016Dative subjects in Germanic: A computational analysis of lexical semantic verb classes across time and space. STUF: Language Typology and Universals 69(1). 49–84.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman
2013The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2003The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39(3). 439–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea
2015Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland A. Pooth & Peter Alexander Kerkhof
. Forthcoming. Oblique anticausatives: A morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics.
[ p. 501 ]
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman
2013The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 28–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray
2012Reconstructing 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
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður
2014Oblique anticausative in Lithuanian: A comparative approach. Baltistica XLIX(1). 15–39.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2003A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel
1900Semantics. Studies in the science of meaning. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Tafseer Ahmed
2011The redevelopment of Indo-Aryan case systems from a lexical semantic perspective. Morphology 21 (3–4). 545–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca
1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
2000Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 23. 65–85.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
1977Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Calude, Andreea S. & Mark Pagel
2011How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 world languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366. 1101–1107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd
2017The syntax of Tocharian. In Jared Klein, Brian Joseph & Matthias Fritz (eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics, Vol. 3 1352–1364. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca & William S. Y. Wang
1986Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language 62(1). 38–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Bethany J. & Brian D. Joseph
2016On the relationship between argument structure change and semantic change. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1(26). 1–11.Google Scholar
Clackson, James
2007Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
2008Linguistic diversity in the Caucasus. Annual Review of Anthropology 37. 131–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conti, Luz
2008Synchronie und Diachronie des altgriechischen Genitivs als Semisubjekt, Historische Sprachforschung 121. 94–113.Google Scholar
2009Weiteres zum Genitiv als Semisubjekt im Altgriechischen: Analyse des Kasus bei impersonalen Konstruktionen. Historische Sprachforschung 122. 182–207.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert
2008On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 77–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, Willam
2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 502 ]
Danesi, Serena
2014aSubjecthood and non-canonical case marking: A case study on modal verbs in Ancient Greek. Paper presented at the EVALISA/ContraGram Workshop on Non-Canonical Subjects, Ghent, March 2014.
2014bAccusative subjects in Avestan: ‘Errors’ or noncanonically marked arguments. Indo-Iranian Journal 57(3). 223–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal
2017Between the historical languages and the reconstructed language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 122. 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018Where does the modality of Ancient Greek modal verbs come from? The relation between modality and oblique case marking. Journal of Greek Linguistics 18(1). 45–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
David, Oana Alexandra
2016Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization. University of California, Berkeley, Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2006Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81(4). 339–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, Rick
2015Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 13). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
1999Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
2010Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Ilse Wischer
2013Markers of futurity in Old High German and Old English: A comparative corpus-based study. In Gabriele Diewald, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka & Ilse Wischer (eds.), Comparative studies in Early Germanic languages: With a focus on verbal categories, 195–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
EWA
= 2014Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Althochdeutschen. Bd. 5, ed. by Lloyd, Albert L. & Rosemarie Lühr. Göttingen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur
2000Dative vs. Nominative: Changes in quirky subjects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 27–44.Google Scholar
2002Changes in subject case marking in Icelandic. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 196–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal
2005Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4). 824–881. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Cecilia
1997Fornsvenska upplevarverb [Old Swedish experiencer verbs]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara
2014Experiential constructions in Latin. Brill: Leiden. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R.
1935The Technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society 34(1). 36–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 503 ]
Fischer, Susann
2010Word order change as a source of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne
1983The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W. IV.
2003An approach to semantic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 648–666. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre
2011Social ecology and language history in the Northern Vanuatu Linkage: A tale of divergence and convergence. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(2). 175–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2015Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
2005Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2018The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew
1997The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Metaphors as resource for the conceptualization and expression of emotion. In Khurshid Ahmad (ed.), Affective computing and sentiment analysis: Emotion, metaphor and terminology, 13–25. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions:A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm
1854–1971Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand
2007Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1): 129–150.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2008Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, John Richard Clark
1916A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary for the use of students. 2nd edn. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2008Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Christian Koops
2008A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates: The case of Swedish pseudo-coordination with sitta ‘sit’. Diachronica 25(2). 242–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H.
1990Oblique subjects in Sanskrit? In M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages, 119–139. Stanford: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 504 ]
Ihrig, Roscoe Myrl
1916The semantic development of words for “walk, run” in the Germanic languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1997Twistin’ the night away. Language 73. 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2005Variation in subject case marking in Insular Scandinavian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2). 223–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow
2000Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 7–23. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard
2014Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 6th edn. Available at http://​www​.koeblergerhard​.de​/ahdwbhin​.html
Kövecses, Zoltán
2002Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus
2013Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred
2011Auxiliaries and grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 547–558. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid
2009Evolution of case systems. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 439–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012The Vedic -ya-presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1964The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Le Mair, Esther, Cynthia A. Johnson, Michael Frotscher, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
2017Position as a behavioral property of subjects: The case of Old Irish. Indogermanische Forschungen 122. 111–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben
2001Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, und Brigitte Schirmer. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
2015Epistemic/evidential markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. In Andrew Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2010Experiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael J. Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia lux: Anatolian and Indo European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 249–264. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 505 ]
Martín Arista, Javier
2012The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(4). 411–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986–1996Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. I–II. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2009Sign-based construction grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013Sign-based construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer
2001Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz
1998“Gehen” und “Stehen” im Germanischen: Versuch einer Synthese. Historische Sprachforschung 111, bd. I. 134–162.Google Scholar
Nicholls, Diane
2004What we talk about when we talk about success and failure. MED magazine: The monthly webzine of the Macmillan English dictionaries 16 (Feb). URL: http://​www​.macmillandictionaries​.com​/MED​-Magazine​/February2004​/16​-metaphor​-success​-failure​.htm
OED = Oxford English dictionary
Pinault, Georges-Jean
2011Sur l’histoire des cas en tokharien. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.), Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe, 383–398. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius
1959Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bd. 1. Bern, Munich: Francke.Google Scholar
Pooth, Roland, Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov & Jóhanna Barðdal
2019The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, ergative, or semantic alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen 124: 245–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Purtscher, Fridolin
1902Die untrennbaren Partikeln im althochdeutschen Tatian. Chur: J. Casanova.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter
1996Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reznikova, Tatiana, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Anastasia A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya
2012Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics 50(3). 421–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don
2006From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur
1995Old Icelandic: A non-configurational language? NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 26. 3–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A.
2012Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sanders, Willy
1965Glück: Zur Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung eines mittelalterlichen Schicksalsbegriffs (Niederdeutsche Studien 13). Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Schubert, Thomas W., Sven Waldzus & Steffen R. Giessner
2009Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition 27(1). 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 506 ]
Schützeichel, Rudolf
2012Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smitherman, Thomas
2012Metaphors expressed by argument marking patterns: An historical and typological view. Paper presented at Hitches in Historical Linguistics, Bergen, February 22–23, 2012.
Sturtevant, Edgar Howard
1917Linguistic change: An introduction to the historical study of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
1996Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
2007The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2001Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsepeleva, Valentina
2015Tracing changes in argument structures of dative subject predicates in Old Russian and Modern Russian. University of Bergen M.A. Thesis.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen
1951The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson.Google Scholar
1962Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke
1983The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21(1). 123–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viti, Carlotta
2016The morphosyntax of experience predicates in Tocharian. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie Orientale (CLAO) 45. 26–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waite, Maurice
2009Oxford thesaurus of English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walkden, George
2013The correspondence problem in syntactic reconstruction. Diachronica 30(1). 95–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Syntactic reconstruction in Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide
2001Verbs of affect from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. In Nicole Dehé & Anja Wanner (eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs, 219–248. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Mechthild Habermann
2004Der Gebrauch von Präfixverben zum Ausdruck von Aspekt/Aktionsart im Altenglischen und Althochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 32(2). 262–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
WNT = Woordenboek der nederlandsche taal
1882–2001 The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm Max
1904Völkerpsychologie: eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Band 1. Die Sprache. 2nd edn. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad A.
2006A new vision for Israeli Hebrew: Theoretical and practical implications of analyzing Israel’s main language as a semi-engineered Semito-European hybrid language. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5(1). 57–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns. Journal of Language Contact 2(2). 40–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 507 ][ p. 508 ]