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

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 53, pp. 91–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fagard, B. & W. De Mulder
(2007): La formation des prépositions complexes: grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation? Langue Française 156, 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 5, 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
[ p. 124 ]
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 30, 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 45, 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 66/2, 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
[ p. 125 ]
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