Article published in:
Revisiting Shakespeare's Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi, Roberta Facchinetti, Silvia Cacchiani and Antonio Bertacca
[English Text Construction 11:1] 2018
► pp. 105–140

Taming iconicity in the Spanish and Italian translations of Shakespeare’s Sonnets

Some observations from a (Contrastive) (Cognitive) Construction Grammar perspective

| University of Almería
Building on Tabakowska’s (1993, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013) full-blown defense of a cognitive linguistic approach to literary translation as well as on previous research dealing with the implementations of Construction Grammar(s) for translation studies (Szymańska 2011a, 2011b; Serbina 2015), this paper critically examines the role of iconicity in selected lines from Shakespeare’s Sonnets capitalizing on the passage of Time-Death and their corresponding translations in present-day Spanish and Italian. Specifically, drawing on Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 2006) and Contrastive Construction Grammar (Boas 2010a; Boas & Gonzálvez-García 2014), I focus on instances of secondary predication with verbs of sensory perception, causative constructions and aspectual constructions iconically connected with the above-mentioned motif and demonstrate that iconicity emerges as a very useful communicative ‘filter’ that can help to minimize any undesirable arbitrariness which may obscure the semantico-pragmatic interpretation of the source text and/or its rendering into the target text.
Keywords: Construction Grammar(s), iconicity, interlingual translation, Shakespeare,
Published online: 27 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00006.gon
References

[ p. 133 ]References

Achard, Michel
1998 Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements (Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alm-Arvius, Christina
1993 The English Verb See: A Study in Multiple Meaning. Göteborg: Acta Universitas Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Álvarez, José María
1999 Sonetos. Valencia: Pre-Textos.Google Scholar
Baldini, Gabriele
1992 William Shakespeare: Sonetti. Milan: Feltrinelli. (Translation by Lucifero Darchini.)Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
(ed.) 2010a Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b Comparing constructions across languages. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
(eds) 2014 Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1968 Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2: 119–127.Google Scholar
1974 Concept and percept: Two infinitive constructions and their vicissitudes. In World Papers in Phonetics: Festschrift for Dr. Onishi’s Kiju, Masao Ōnishi (ed.). Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan, 65–91.Google Scholar
1977 Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann
1973 To be or not to be. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 9: 44–56.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1985 The iconic role of aspect in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129. Poetics Today 6 (3): 447–459.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
2014 Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003 Aspect. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 2nd ed., W. J. Frawley (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157–158.Google Scholar
Chamosa González, José Luis
1997 Crítica y evaluación de traducciones: Elementos para su discusión. In Aproximaciones a los Estudios de Traducción, Purificación Fernández Nistal & José María Bravo Gozalo (eds). Valladolid: University of Valladolid Press, 29–50.Google Scholar
Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis & José Luis Tornel Sala
1996 El predicativo en español: Iconicidad y gramática. Lingüística Española Actual XVIII: 17–47.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V.
1971 On the acquisition of the meaning of after and before. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10: 266–275.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1982 The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Journal of English Linguistics 16: 27–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 134 ]
Demonte, Violeta
1991 Observaciones sobre la predicación secundaria: Mando-c, extracción y reanálisis. In Detrás de la Palabra, Violeta Demonte (ed.). Madrid: Alianza, 157–201.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2005 Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43: 449–470.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 465–490.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Adverbial subordination. In Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds). London: Continuum, 341–354.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick
1992 The English Infinitive. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Jarle
1998 Using translations to explore construction meaning in English and Norwegian. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 169–195.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik
1990 Discourse comprehension, text strategies and style. AMULA 73: 166–180.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa
1990a Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English. I. Studia Neophilologica 62: 3–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990b Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English. II. Studia Neophilologica 62: 129–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Infinitival Complements in Shakespeare’s English. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago de Compostela Press.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud
1991 Frequenz und kognition – Frequenz und markiertheit. Folia Linguistica 25: 361–394.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M.
1995 The distinction between to and bare infinitival complements in Late Middle English. Diachronica 12: 1–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Verbal complementation in Early Middle English: How do the infinitives fit in? In English Historical Linguistics 1994, Derek Britton (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247–270.Google Scholar
1999 Changes in infinitival constructions in English. In Anglistentag 1998, Sabine Schulting & Fritz-Wilhelm Neumann (eds). Erfurt Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 7–27.Google Scholar
2000 Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Max Nänny
1999 Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in language use. In Form Miming Meaning (Iconicity in Language and Literature 1), Max Nänny & Olga Fischer (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xv–xxxvi.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds) 2001 The Motivated Sign (Iconicity in Language and Literature 2). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
1993 Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 135 ]
Galera Masegosa, Alicia & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
2012 Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences 34: 54–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Calvo, Agustín
1974 William Shakespeare/Sonetos de Amor. Barcelona: Anagrama. 1998 edition.Google Scholar
García García, Luciano
2013 Sonetos y Querellas de una Amante. William Shakespeare. Edición en Inglés, Traducción y Notas. Valencia: JPM Ediciones.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1980 The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4: 333–377.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Iconicity in Syntax, John Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187–219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Syntax. A Functional-Typological Approach. Vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1991 Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15: 85–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18 (2): 265–337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Syntax: An Introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2009 The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: First steps towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences 31: 663–723.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors. In Studies in Contrastive Construction Grammar, Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49 (6): 1305–1358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Bringing together fragments and constructions: Evidence from complementation in English and Spanish. In Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15), Hans C. Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–226.Google Scholar
Gramley, Stephan
1987 The Infinitive Forms of English as Verb Complements. Duisburg: LAUD.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa
1993 Causative and Perception Verbs (A Comparative Study). Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1980 The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56 (3): 515–540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59 (4): 781–819.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 136 ]
1985 Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Iconicity. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ronald E. Asher (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1629–1633.Google Scholar
2006 Iconicity. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. V. 2nd ed., Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 457–461.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L.
2003 The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target 15 (2): 197–241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. In The Study of Language and Translation, Willy Vandeweghe, Sonia Vandepitte & Marc van de Velde (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105–121.Google Scholar
2010 Cognitive translation studies. In Translation and Cognition, Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 349–369.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Implications of cognitive linguistics for translation studies. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 33–73.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Stella Neumann
2012 Corpus enrichment, representation, exploitation, and quality control. In Cross-linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 35–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2008 Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 1–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, María Luisa
1988 En torno a la sintaxis y semántica de los complementos predicativos en español. Estudi General 8: 7–29.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2010 Comparing comparatives: A corpus-based study of comparative constructions in English and Swedish. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hiraga, Masako K.
1994 Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 5–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B.
2015 The iconicity of infinitival complementation in present-day English causatives. In Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), Costantino Maeder, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 286–306.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru
1993 A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb complements: A cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1997 Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1969 Predicate complement constructions in English (A review article). Lingua 23: 241–273.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 137 ]
James, Francis
1987 Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1971 Implicative verbs. Language 47: 340–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert & Sandra A. Thompson
1976 The role of pragmatic inference in semantics: A study of sensory verb complements in English. Glossa 10: 200–240.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991a Concept, Image, and Symbol (The Cognitive Basis of Grammar). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991b Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lvóvskaya, Zinaida
1997 Problemas Actuales de Traducción. Granada: Granada Lingüística & Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
Machacek, Jaroslav
1965 Complementation of the English Verb by the Accusative-with-Infinitive and the Content Clause. Prague: Státi Pedgagocké Nakaldatelsví.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik
(eds) 2014 Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCandless, Robert Ian
1993 La popularidad de un texto isabelino en España: Los sonetos de Shakespeare. Sendebar 4: 225–244.Google Scholar
Maeder, Costantino, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky
(eds) 2005 Outside-In – Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Micó, José María
1985 Una traición a Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación 5–6: 53–57.Google Scholar
Mujica Laínez, Manuel
1983 Sonetos de William Shakespeare. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
1985 Recuerdo de Procusto: Traducir a Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación 5–6: 41–43.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang G. & Olga Fischer
(eds) 2003 From Sign to Signing (Iconicity in Language and Literature 3). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nänny, Max & Olga Fischer
2006 Iconicity: Literary texts. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 462–472.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1987 Manual de Traducción. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964 Towards a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Pérez Romero, Carmen
1987 Monumento de Amor (Los Sonetos de W. Shakespeare Vertidos al Español en Sonetos). Cáceres: University of Extremadura Press.Google Scholar
1988 Sanciones aduaneras en la frontera anglo-española al traducir los sonetos de Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación 10: 19–37.Google Scholar
Praz, Mario
1964 Shakespeare-Tutte le Opere. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
[ p. 138 ]
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth R.
1975 Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 11: 467–474.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Espiñeira, María José
1989 El complemento predicativo del complemento directo en español. PhD dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
2002 Percepción directa e indirecta en español. Diferencias semánticas y formales. Verba 27: 33–85.Google Scholar
Rojo, Ana & Javier Valenzuela
2013 Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 283–310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2013 Pedagogical grammar and meaning construction. Plenary lecture given at the 1st International Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy Conference (CALP 2013), Brussels, 8–9 November 2013.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Alicia Galera Masegosa
2014 Cognitive Modeling: A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rutelli, Romana
1986 Shakespeare: I Sonetti. Milan: Garzanti.Google Scholar
Salvi, Giorgio
1981 Complementi predicativi. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 10: 313–349.Google Scholar
Serbina, Tatiana
2015 A Construction Grammar approach to the analysis of translation shifts: A corpus-based study. PhD dissertation, RWTH Aachen University. https://​publications​.rwth​-aachen​.de​/record​/538325 (Last accessed on 8 June 2018).
Shakespeare, W.
1995 Sonetti. Testo Inglese a Fronte. Milan: BUR. Translation by A. Serpieri. 2015 edition.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1976 Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of English Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Song, J. J.
2006 Causatives: Semantics. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier, 265–268.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spaulding, Robert K.
1933 Infinitive and subjunctive with hacer, mandar, dejar, and the like. Hispania 16 (4): 425–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spears, Arthur K.
1977 The semantics of English complementation. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Szymańska, Izabela
2011a Mosaics: A Construction-grammar-based Approach to Translation. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper.Google Scholar
2011b Construction Grammar as a framework for describing translation: A prolegomenon. In New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies (Second Language Learning and Teaching), Mirosław Pawlak & Jakub Bielak (eds). Berlin: Springer, 215–225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta
1993 Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2003 Iconicity and literary translation. In From Sign to Signing (Iconicity in Language and Literature 3), Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 361–376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 139 ]
2005 Iconicity as a function of point of view. In Outside-In – Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), Costantino Maeder, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 375–387.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
. Iconicity 2009 Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5), Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 129–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 (Cognitive) grammar in translation: Form as meaning. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 229–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta, Christina Ljunberg & Olga Fischer
(eds) 2007 Insistent Images (Iconicity in Language and Literature 5). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timyam, Napasri & Benjamin K. Bergen
2010 A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 136–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ungaretti, Giuseppe
1986 Saggi e Interventi. Milan: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, A.
1999 Álvarez: Los Sonetos de Shakespeare son indestructibles. La Verdad (Diario de Murcia) 25th April 1999, p. 72.Google Scholar
Van der Meer, Geart
1994 Verbs of perception and their complementation. English Studies 5: 468–480.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn
2000 Iconicity in English complement constructions: Conceptual distance and cognitive processing levels. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, Kaoru Horie (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 199–225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Jiyoung & Stephanie Wulff
2016 A corpus-based study of infinitival and sentential complement constructions in Spanish. In Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 9), Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zandvoort, Reinard Willem & Jan Ate Van Ek
1962 A Handbook of English Grammar. 6th ed. London: Longman Press.Google Scholar
Zazo, Anna Luisa
1993 Shakespeare: Sonetti. Milan: Mondadori.[ p. 140 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 january 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.