References
Allen, M. J. B. & Muir, K.
(eds) 1981Shakespeare’s Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily from the Henry E. Huntington Library. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Beckerman, B.
1962Shakespeare at the Globe. 1599–1609. New York NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Berman, A.
1970Agent, experiencer, and controllability. In Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation [Report NSF–24], S. Kuno (ed.), 203–237. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bradley, A. C.
[1904]2007Shakespearean Tragedy, 4th edn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1986Knowledge of Language. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clemen, W.
1964Shakespeare’s Soliloquies [The presidential address of the Modern Humanities Research Association]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1987Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Cook, W. S. J.
1989Case Grammar Theory. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, E. A.
1973Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics 9(1): 11–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A.
2004Agency in language. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, A. Duranti (ed.), 451–474. New York NY: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis-Fermor, U.
1948The Frontiers of Drama. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Evans, G. B.
(ed.) 1974The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston MA: Houghton and Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.
1968The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach & R. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fowler, R.
1977Linguistics and the Novel. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gentens, C. & Rudanko, J.
2019The great complement shift and the role of understood subjects. Folia Linguistica 53: 51–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gingrich, M. C.
1978Soliloquies, Asides, and Audience in English Renaissance Drama. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
Gruber, J. S.
1967Look and see. Language 43(4): 937–947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1976Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hinman, C.
1968The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. New York NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J.
2003Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies. Madison NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Honigman, E. A. J.
(ed.) [1997]2016The Arden Shakespeare: Othello. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M.
2004Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, S. S.
1982The Literary Language of Shakespeare. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
[1940]1961A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V: Syntax (Vol. 4). London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1977Linguistic gestalts. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds), 236–287. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Landau, I.
2013Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A.
1984On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muir, K.
1964Shakespeare’s soliloquies. Ocidente LXVII: 45–58.Google Scholar
Nuttall, L.
2018Mind Style and Cognitive Grammar: Language and World View in Speculative Fiction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.
1978Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Vol. 4, 157-190. Berkeley CA: BLS. Google Scholar
Postal, P.
1970On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 439–500.Google Scholar
Rudanko, J.
1989Complementation and Case Grammar. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
1993Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
2017Infinitives and Gerunds in Recent English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skiffington, L.
1985The History of English Soliloquy: Aeschylus to Shakespeare. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Sprague, A. C.
1935Shakespeare and the Audience: A Study in the Technique of Exposition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Styan, J. L.
[1967]1988Shakespeare’s Stagecraft. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
2003Meaning and context. In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 243], H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. Panther (eds), 27–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Oosten, J.
1984The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. PhD dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.
Wanner, A.
2009Deconstructing the English Passive. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T.
1977Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal Syntax, P. E. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds), 327–360. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Tabbert, Ulrike & Juhani Rudanko
2021. Aspects of Characterisation in James Hadley Chase's Crime Fiction: Multiple Perspectives. English Studies 102:3  pp. 362 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 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.