Article published In:
Interfaces in Romance: A constraint-based approach
Edited by Gabriela Bîlbîie
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43:1] 2020
► pp. 6294
References (90)
References
Abeillé, A. & Godard, D. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language, 78(3), 404–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Bonami, O., Godard, D. & Tseng, J. 2004. The syntax of French de-N′ phrases. In S. Müller, Ed., The 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), p. 6–26, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2006. The syntax of French à and de: an HPSG analysis. In P. Saint-Dizier, Ed., Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Iordăchioaia, G. 2014. The psych causative alternation. Lingua, 1481, 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F. 2013. Towards a non-uniform analysis of naturally reflexive verbs. In R. Santana-LaBarge, Ed., Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, p. 1–10, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1999. On experiencers. In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks & M. Stavrou, Eds., Studies in Greek Syntax, p. 67–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arad, M. 1998a. Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 101, 1–22.Google Scholar
1998b. VP structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. PhD thesis, UCL.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(9), 5–16.Google Scholar
Bach, E. & Partee, B. H. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. In J. Kreiman & A. Ojede, Eds., Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, volume 101, p. 1–28. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Badia, T. 1998. Prepositions in Catalan. In S. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p. 109–149. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bar-el, L. 2005. Aspectual distinctions in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ -theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6(3), 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bildhauer, F. 2007. Representing Information Structure in an HPSG Grammar of Spanish. Dissertation, Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
2014. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi, Eds., The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, p. 526–555. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 1989. An HPSG approach to Welsh. Journal of Linguistics, 251, 333–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, G. 1982. Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienforschung. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 331, 17–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouma, G., Malouf, R. & Sag, I. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 131, 184–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C. & Sag, I. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3(4), 281–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, B. 2003. Constraint-based Coanalysis. Dissertation, DFKI, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Davis, A. & Koenig, J.-P. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76(1), 56–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Miguel, E. & Fernández, M. 2000. El operador aspectual se . Revista Española de Lingüística, 301, 13–43.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991a. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991b. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A., Jiménez-Fernández, A. & Tubino, M. 2017. What’s up with dative experiencers. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 12: Selected Papers from the 45th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Campinas, Brazil, p. 30–47.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D., Bender, E. M. & Oepen, S. 2003. MRS in the LinGO Grammar Matrix: A practical user’s guide.Google Scholar
Franco, J. 1990. Towards a typology of psych verbs, evidence from Spanish. In T. Green & S. Usziel, Eds., Proceedings of 2nd meeting of SCIL, MITWPL, number 12 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, p. 46–62, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. & Marín, R. 2015. Deriving individual-level and stage-level psych verbs in Spanish. The Linguistic Review, 32(2), 227–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gómez Soler, I. 2013. Aspectual differences with syntactic consequences: Argument structure alternations in L2 Spanish. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, T. Judy & D. Pascual y Cabo, Eds., 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA 12) Conference, p. 50–59. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky, Eds., Causatives and Transitivity, p. 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
Kiss, T. 1995. Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. 1999. Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Machicao y Priemer, A. 2010. Die differentielle Objektmarkierung im Spanischen. Magister thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.Google Scholar
2014. Differentielle Objektmarkierung: Spezifizität und Akkusativ im Spanischen. In A. Machicao y Priemer, A. Nolda & A. Sioupi, Eds., Zwischen Kern und Peripherie, p. 103–130. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. NP-Arguments in NPs: An Analysis of German and Spanish Noun Phrases in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät II.Google Scholar
2019. Argumentstruktur. In S. Schierholz & P. Uzonyi, Eds., Grammatik: Syntax, number 1.2 in Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (Online). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Machicao y Priemer, A. & Fritz-Huechante, P. 2018. Korean and Spanish psych-verbs: Interaction of case, theta-roles, linearization, and event structure in HPSG. In S. Müller & F. Richter, Eds., The 25th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, p. 155–175, University of Tokyo: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2020. Reflexivizing Spanish psych-verbs: Ambiguities across classes. In J. Audring, N. Koutsoukos & C. Manouilidou, Eds., The 12th Mediterranean Morphology Meetings (MMM), p. 42–53, University of Ljubljana: Pasithee.Google Scholar
Manning, C. & Sag, I. 1998. Argument structure, valence, and binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 211, 107–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín, R. 2011. Casi todos los predicados psicológicos son estativos. In A. Carrasco, Ed., Sobre estados y estatividad, p. 26–44. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
2015. Los predicados psicológicos: Debate sobre el estado de la cuestión. In R. Marín, Ed., Los predicados psicológicos, p. 11–50. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Marín, R. & McNally, L. 2005. The Aktionsart of Spanish reflexive psychological verbs and their English counterparts. In E. Maier, C. Bary & J. Huitink, Eds., Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (Sinn und Bedeutung 9), p. 212–225, Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.Google Scholar
2011. Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29(2), 467–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masullo, P. J. 1992. Antipassive constructions in Spanish. In P. Hirschbühler & E. F. K. Koerner, Eds., Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, p. 175–194. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauner, G. & Koenig, J.-P. 1999. Lexical encoding of event participant information. Brain and Language, 681, 178–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCready, E. & Nishida, C. 2008. Reflexive intransitives in Spanish and event semantics. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow & M. Schäfer, Eds., Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, p. 223–244. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurers, W. D. 1999. Raising spirits (and assigning them case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL), 431, 173–226.Google Scholar
Miller, P. & Monachesi, P. 2010. Clitic pronouns in the Romance languages. In D. Godard, Ed., Fundamental Issues in the Romance Languages, p. 53–106. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, P. & Sag, I. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monachesi, P. 1993. Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian HPSG grammar. In Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Decomposing Italian clitics. In S. Balari & L. Dini, Eds., Romance in HPSG, p. 305–357. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2005. The Verbal Complex in Romance: A Case Study in Grammatical Interfaces. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. 1999. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press, 3 edition.Google Scholar
Müller, S. & Machicao y Priemer, A. 2019. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In A. Kertész, E. Moravcsik & C. Rákosi, Eds., Current Approaches to Syntax – A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. & Wechsler, S. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1/2), 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
1970. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(2), 187–255.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñón, C. 1997. Achievements in an event semantics. In A. Lawson & E. Cho, Eds., Proceedings of SALT 71, p. 273–296, Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. J. 1996. On head non-movement. In H. Bunt & A. V. Horck, Eds., Discontinuous Constituency, p. 279–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1971. Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A. 1999. Case Assignment and the Complement/Adjunct Dichotomy: A Non-Configurational Constraint-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
2020. Case. In S. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press. [To appear].Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Scholz, B. 2001. On the distinction between generative-enumerative and model-theoretic syntactic frameworks. In P. de Groote, G. Morrill & C. Retoré, Eds., 4th Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL), number 2099 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 17–43, Le Croisic, France: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2000. On stativity and causation. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky, Eds., Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, p. 417–442. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(4), 657–720.Google Scholar
Richter, F. 2000. A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
2020. Formal background. In S. Müller, A. Abeillé, R. D. Borsley & J.-P. Koenig, Eds., Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The handbook. Berlin: Language Science Press. [To appear].Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruwet, N. 1972. Théorie Syntaxique et Syntaxe du Français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Sag, I. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 431–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. D. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Ed. by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. [Edition from 2016, published as Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, by Walter de Gruyter].Google Scholar
Schäfer, R. & Bildhauer, F. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis, Eds., Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), p. 486–493, Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). [COW-Corpus: [URL]].
Seres, D. & Espinal, M. T. 2018. Psychological verbs and their arguments. Borealis, 7(1), 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temme, A. 2018. The peculiar nature of psych verbs and experiencer object structures. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, F. 2015. Predicative Constructions: From the Fregean to a Montagovian Treatment. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & LaPolla, R. J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Number 10 in Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanhoe, H. 2004. Aspectos de la sintaxis de los verbos psicológicos en español: un análisis léxico funcional. Dissertations in Linguistics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vogel, C. & Villada, B. N. 1999. An HPSG Analysis of Grammatical Relations, Syntactic Valency and Semantic Argument Structure in Spanish Psychological Predicates and other Instances of Quirky Case and Agreement. Technical report, Computational Linguistics Laboratory, Trinity College.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. M. 1991. Argument Structure and Linking. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Whitley, M. S. 1995. Gustar and other psych verbs: A problem in transitivity. Hispania, 78(3), 573–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bondaruk, Anna & Bożena Rozwadowska
2024. Alternating arguments of Polish psych verbs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.