Article published in:
Les prépositions complexes dans les langues romanes
Edited by Benjamin Fagard, José Pinto De Lima and Dejan Stosic
[Revue Romane 54:1] 2019
► pp. 93125
References
Adams, J. N.
(2013): Social variation and the Latin language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, J. & R. Torres Cacoullos
(2016): The generalization of preposition para via fusion and ensuing loss of compositionality. in: Tortora, Ch. & M. den Dikken & I. L. Montoya & T. O’Neill (eds.): Romance linguistics 2013. Selected papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New York, 17–19 April, 2013. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia (Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 9), pp. 39–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, Ph.
(1997): On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters, in: Palek, B. (ed.): Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals. Proceedings of the conference held in Prague August 20–22, 1996. Charles University Press, Praha (Acta Universitatis Carolinae; Philologica, 1996, 3–4, Proceedings of LP ’96), pp. 185–218.Google Scholar
Brøndal, V.
(1950): Théorie des prépositions. Introduction à une sémantique rationnelle. E. Munksgaard, København.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010): Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Company Company, C. & Z. Sobrevilla Moreno
(2014): Las preposiciones de, des y desde , in: Company Company, C. (ed.): Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: Adverbios, preposiciones y conjunciones: relaciones interoracionales. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F., pp. 1341–1478.Google Scholar
Fagard, B.
(2006): La grammaticalisation en question: du latin aux langues romanes modernes. Modèles linguistiques 531, pp. 91–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fagard, B. & W. De Mulder
(2007): La formation des prépositions complexes: grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation? Langue Française 1561, pp. 9–29.Google Scholar
Hagège, C.
(2010): Adpositions. Function-marking in human languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory).Google Scholar
Hamp, C.
(1888): Die zusammengesetzten Präpositionen im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 51, pp. 321–368.Google Scholar
Harrington, K. P.
(1997): Medieval Latin. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press (Second ed. rev. by Joseph Pucci). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2011): The gradual coalescence into “words” in grammaticalization, in: Narrog, H. & B. Heine (eds.): The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford etc. (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), pp. 324–355.Google Scholar
Hofmann, J. B. & A. Szantyr
(1965): Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. C.H. Beck, München (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2/2/2).Google Scholar
Kailuweit, R.
(2001): Lexeme, Kasusmarker, Relatoren? Überlegungen zu den spanischen Präpositionen unter dem Aspekt der Grammatikalisierung, in: Schäfer-Prieß, B. & H. Klöden & R. Kailuweit (eds.): Grammatikalisierung in den iberoromanischen Sprachen. G. Egert, Wilhelmsfeld, pp. 33–62.Google Scholar
Klöden, H.
(2001): Grammatikalisierung im Bereich der Präpositionen: Spanisch und Französisch im Vergleich, in: Schäfer-Prieß, Barbara & H. Klöden & R. Kailuweit (eds.): Grammatikalisierung in den iberoromanischen Sprachen. Wilhelmsfeld: G. Egert; 63–75.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & E. König
(1992): Categorial reanalysis: the case of deverbal prepositions. Linguistics 301, pp. 671–697. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch.
(1985): Latin case relations in typological perspective, in: Touratier, Ch. (ed.): Syntaxe et latin. Actes du IIme Congrès International de Linguistique Latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983. Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 81–104.Google Scholar
(1992): Yukatekische lokale Relatoren in typologischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 451, pp. 626–641.Google Scholar
(1998): Regiones espaciales en perspectiva tipológica, in: García-Hernández, B. (ed.): Estudios de lingüística latina. Actas del IX Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Latina, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 14–18 de abril de 1997. Ed. Clásicas, Madrid, pp. 455–466.Google Scholar
(2002): New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization, in: Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (eds.): New reflections on grammaticalization. J. Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia (TSL, 49), pp. 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013): The nature of parts of speech. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 66/21, pp. 141–177.Google Scholar
(2015): Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Language Science Press, Berlin (Classics in Linguistics, 1).Google Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. & Ch. Stolz
(1992): Bildung von Adpositionen im Deutschen. Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt, Erfurt (ASSidUE, 6).Google Scholar
Löfstedt, E.
(1959): Late Latin. O. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden; Aschehong (W.Nygaard), Oslo etc. (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, A/25).Google Scholar
Luraghi, S.
(2010): Adverbial phrases, in: Baldi, Ph. & P. Cuzzolin (eds.): New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Volume 2: Constituent syntax: Adverbial phrases, adverbs, mood, tense. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 180.2), pp. 19–107.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1968): Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norberg, D.
(1944): Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala; Harrassowitz, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Opfermann, A.
(2016): Univerbierung. Der passive Wortbildungsmechanismus. Baar, Hamburg (Studien zur historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft, 8).Google Scholar
Pinkster, H.
(1990): The development of cases and adpositions in Latin, in: Pinkster, H. & I. Genee (eds.): Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 195–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ricca, D.
(2010): Adverbs, in: Baldi, Ph. & P. Cuzzolin (eds.): New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Volume 2: Constituent syntax: Adverbial phrases, adverbs, mood, tense. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 180.2), pp. 109–191.Google Scholar
Rubio, L.
(1966): Introducción a la sintaxis estructural del latin. Vol. I: Casos y preposiciones. Ariel, Barcelona (Colección “Convivium”, 4).Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. & J. Bauman
(2014): Las preposiciones por, pora y para , in: Company Company, C. (ed.): Sintaxis histórica de la lengua española. Tercera parte: Adverbios, preposiciones y conjunciones: relaciones interoracionales. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F., pp. 1479–1564.Google Scholar
Väänänen, V.
(1967): Introduction au latin vulgaire. Deuxième édition avec anthologie de textes. Klincksieck, Paris (Bibliothèque Française et Romane, A/6) (2. Auflage; 1. Auflage: 1963).Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
(2017), “Parts and particles. The story of dē”. Los, Bettelou & de Haan, Pieter (eds.), Word order change in acquisition and language contact. Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins; 291–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019), “Complex versus compound prepositions: evidence from Gallo-Romance”. Wolfe, Sam & Maiden, Martin (eds.), Variation and change in Gallo-Romance grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 000–000.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Lehmann, Christian
2020. Univerbation. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2022. 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.