Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 115149
References
Barðdal, Johanna
Barðdal, Johanna, Kristian Emil Kristoffersen, and Andreas Sveen
2011 “West Scandinavian Ditransitives as a Family of Constructions: With a Special Attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ Construction.” Linguistics 49 (1): 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Natanael
1964Svensk språklära. Stockholm: Sv. bokförl.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, and Johan Roxendal
2012 “Korp: The Corpus Infrastructure of Språkbanken.” Proceedings of LREC 2012, 474–478. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, R. Harald Baayen
2007 “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Sandra Thompson
1997 “Three Frequency Effects in Syntax.” Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 378–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2010 “Lectal Variation in Constructional Semantics: ‘Benefactive’ Ditransitives in Dutch.” In Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman, 191–221. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A Diachronic Perspective.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59 (4): 387–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck
2008 “Accounting for Ditransitive Constructions with Envy and Forgive.” Functions of Language 15 (2): 187–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2003 “Lexical Rules vs. Constructions: A False Dichotomy”. In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic
2010 “The Old English Double Object Alternation: A Discourse-Based Approach.” Sprachwissenschaft 35 (3): 337–368.Google Scholar
2015 “A Multivariate Analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT Double Object Alternation.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11 (2): 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Cecilia
1990 “On Double Object Constructions.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 46: 53–100.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1998 “The Semantic Structure of the Indirect Object in Dutch.” In The Dative II: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies, ed. by Willy Van Langendonck, and William Van Belle, 185–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Surface Generalizations: An Alternative to Alternations.” Cognitive Linguistics 13 (4): 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M.
1974Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Herriman, Jennifer
1993The Indirect Object in Present-Day English. Gothenburg: Department of English, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 “Corpus-Based Approaches to Constructional Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 458–475. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2005 “Recipient-Prominence vs. Beneficiary-Prominence.” Linguistic Typology 9: 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaako
2010 “Results, Cases, and Constructions: Argument Structure Constructions in English and Finnish.” In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, ed. by Hans C. Boas, 103–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundquist, Björn
2014 “Double Object Constructions: Active Verb Nordic Atlas of Language Structures 1: 136–145.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie
2010 “Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview.” In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, ed. by Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Sebastian Hoffmann
Perek, Florent
2012 “Alternation-Based Generalizations are Stored in the Mental Grammar: Evidence from a Sorting Task Experiment.” Cognitive Linguistics 23 (3): 601–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1989Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhammar, Maj
1973Om dativ i svenska och norska dialekter 1: Dativ vid verb. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Silén, Beatrice
2005 “Från jag wil idher berætta till här måste jag berätta för er: Strukturförändringar vid verbet berätta.” In Från översättning till etik: En festskrift till Irma Sorvali på hennes 60-årsdag, ed. by Paula Rossi, 303–313. Oulu: Oulun yliopisto.Google Scholar
2008a “Konstruktionsmönster vid bitransitiva verb i finlandssvenskt och sverigesvenskt talspråk.” Folkmålsstudier 46: 51–88.Google Scholar
2008b “Konstruktionsval vid verbet ge i finlandssvenskt och sverigesvenskt talspråk.” Språk och stil 18: 112–142.Google Scholar
Sjögreen, Christian
2015 “Kasta bort bollen och äta bort sin huvudvärk: En studie av argumentstrukturen i kausativa bort-konstruktioner.” PhD thesis, Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries
2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan, and Erik Andersson
1999Svenska Akademiens grammatik 3: Fraser. Stockholm: Svenska akademien.Google Scholar
Thelander, Mats
2011 “Standardisation and Standard Language in Sweden.” In Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, ed. by Tore Kristiansen, and Nikolas Coupland, 127–133. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Valdeson, Fredrik
2016 “Variation mellan olika konstruktionsval vid verbet ge från fornsvenska till nusvenska.” In Studier i svensk språkhistoria 13: Historia och språkhistoria, ed. by Daniel Andersson, Lars-Erik Edlund, Susanne Haugen, and Asbjørg Westum, 279–292. Umeå: Institutionen för språkstudier, Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
2017 “Dativalternering i modern Svenska.” In Svenskans beskrivning 35: Förhandlingar vid trettiofemte sammankomsten, Göteborg 11–13 maj 2016, ed. by Emma Sköldberg, Maia Andréasson, Henrietta Adamsson Eryd, Filippa Lindahl, Sven Lindström, Julia Prentice, and Malin Sandberg, 355–367. Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Vázquez-González, Juan Gabriel, and Johanna Barðdal
2019 “Reconstructing the Ditransitive Construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic.” Folia Linguistica Historica 40 (2): 555–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Bo A.
2013 “Verbet underkasta och den bitransitiva syntaxen och semantiken.” In Svenskans beskrivning 32: Förhandlingar vid trettioandra sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning, Karlstad den 13–14 oktober 2011, ed. by Björn Bihl, Peter Andersson, and Lena Lötmarker, 338–345. Karlstad: Institutionen för språk, litteratur och interkultur, Karlstads universitet.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
Zehentner, Eva
2018 “Ditransitives in Middle English: On Semantic Specialisation and the Rise of the Dative Alternation.” English Language and Linguistics 22 (1): 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar