Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:1 (2020) ► pp. 2769
References

References

Abdulrahim, Dana
2019GO constructions in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based study. Constructions and Frames 11. 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, James P.
2013The Ancient Egyptian language: An historical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aranda Pérez, Gonzalo
1984El Evangelio de San Mateo en copto sahídico: Texto de M 569, estudio preliminar y aparato critic (Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 35). Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Or constructions: Code, inference and cue too. Constructions and Frames 11. 193–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Askeland, Christian
2013The Coptic versions of the New Testament. In Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes (eds.), The text of the New Testament in contemporary research: Essays on the status quaestionis, 201–229. Leiden & Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 63 ]
Atkins, Beryl T. S.
1987Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. The 3rd Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 17–36.Google Scholar
Bachmann, Ingo
2013Has go-V ousted go-and-V? A study of the diachronic development of both constructions in American English. In Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe O. Ebeling (eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns in lexis (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57): 91–112. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartolotta, Annamaria
2017On deictic motion verbs in Homeric Greek. In Felicia Logozzo & Paolo Poccetti (eds.), Ancient Greek linguistics: New approaches, insights, perspectives, 277–291. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Charles J. Fillmore & Beau Cronin
2003The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography 16. 281–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
2009Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berez, Andrea L. & Stefan Th. Gries
2009In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. In Steven Moran, Darren S. Tanner & Michael Scanlon (eds.), The 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference (University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics), vol. 27, 157–166. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans
2003A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
2005From theory to practice: Frame semantics and the design of FrameNet. In Stefan Langer & Daniel Schnorbusch (eds.), Semantik im lexikon, 129–160. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2008Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 113–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens
2006Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples? The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language 23. 291–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny
2009Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 213–241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2002Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Talmy Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language, 109–134. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crum, Walter E.
1939A Coptic dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 64 ]
Cuyckens, Hubert, René Dirven & John Taylor
(eds.) 2003Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depuydt, Leo
1986The semantic structure of jw-ei ‘come’ and šm-bōk ‘go’. In James P. Allen, Leo Depuydt, Hans J. Polotsky & David P. Silverman (eds.), Essays on Egyptian grammar (Yale Egyptological Studies 1), 22–30. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar.Google Scholar
Engsheden, Åke
2008Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses (Studies in Language Companion Series 103), 323–344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1972How to know whether you’re coming or going. Studies in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics: Bulletin of the Summer Institute in Linguistics 5. 3–17.Google Scholar
1977The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole & Jerry Sadock (eds.), Grammatical relations, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1997Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Beryl T. S. Atkins
1992Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck
2003Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer & Abby Wright
2003Framenet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 16. 297–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne
2015Let’s go look at usage. In Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3(1). 231–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre
2009Verbal aspect and personal pronouns: The history of aorist markers in North Vanuatu. In Andrew Pawley & Alexander Adelaar (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Bob Blust (Pacific Linguistics 601), 179–195. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2015Construction Grammar, 2nd edn. In Artemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Handbook of Syntax, vol. 4, 974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Funk, Christine
1995Fortbewegungsverben in Luthers übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 1517). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Funk, Wolf-Peter
2013The translation of the Bible into Coptic. In James Carleton Paget & Joachim Schaper (eds.), The new Cambridge history of the Bible, vol. 1 (From the Beginnings to 600), 536–546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017“Don’t stop – Please go on…”: On verbs of phase specification in Coptic. In Nathalie Bosson, Anne Boud’hors & Syndey H. Aufrère (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus: miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 256), 193–252. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis
2018A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames. 10(1). 61–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 65 ]
George, H. Coulter
2004Expression of agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2014The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117–144. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 29–40 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2006Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run . In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Eitan
2015No case before the verb, obligatory case after the verb in Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 203–225. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Martin Haspelmath
2015The Leipzig-Jerusalem transliteration of Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 145–153. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan, Guillaume Lescuyer & Stéphane Polis
2014Contexts and inferences. The grammaticalization of the Later Egyptian allative future. In Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, Andreas Stauder & Jean Winand (eds.), On forms and functions: Studies in Ancient Egyptian grammar (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 15), 87–136. Hamburg: Widmaier.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Stéphane Polis
2014On the pragmatics of subjectification: The grammaticalization of verbless allative futures (with a case study in Ancient Egyptian). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 46(1). 25–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick
1996Contextual dependency and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1(1). 75–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2015A grammatical overview of Egyptian and Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 103–143. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haug, Dag
2011Tmesis in the epic tradition. In Øvind Andersen & Dag Haug (eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry, 96–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
2006From case to adposition. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 66 ]
Hilpert, Martin
2008Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames 8(1). 66–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
2002Hendiadys and auxiliation in English. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse. Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 145–173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C.
1981Space and time in Homer. Prepositional and adverbial particles in the Greek epic. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
2004Aspect and verbs of movement in the history of Greek: Why Pericles could ‘walk into town’ but Karamanlis could not. In John H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European perspectives: Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, 182–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. & Melita Stavrou
2007Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua 117. 605–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ioannou, Georgios
2017A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek: The diachronic relevance of the container image-schema in its evolution. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15(1). 253–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries
2017Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1–43 [online first] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul
2013The limits of Construction Grammar. In Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Layton, Bentley
2011A Coptic grammar with chrestomathy and glossary. Sahidic dialect, 3rd edn., (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 20). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Liddell, Henry G. & Robert Scott
1996A Greek-English lexicon [revised and complemented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio
1995Ancient Egyptian. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio & Matthias Müller
2012Ancient Egyptian and Coptic. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds.), The Afroasiatic languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 102–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio, Matthias Müller & Sami Uljas
2017Non-verbal predication in Ancient Egyptian (The Mouton Companions to Ancient Egyptian 2). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
2003On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Greek prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and semantic bleaching. In Emilio Crespo, Jesús de la Villa & Antonio R. Revuelta (eds.), Word classes and related topics in Ancient Greek, 482–499. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Noriko
2015Multi-verb sequences in English: Their classification and functions. Kobe: Kobe University dissertation.Google Scholar
[ p. 67 ]
Meillet, Antoine
1912 [1958]L’ evolution des formes grammaticales. In Antoine Meillet (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130–148. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Montanari, Franco
2015The Brill dictionary of Ancient Greek. https://​dictionaries​.brillonline​.com​/search#dictionary​=montanari​&id​=35729 (12 January 2019).
Moser, Amalia
2008The changing relationship of tense and aspect in the history of Greek. STUF 61. 5–18.Google Scholar
Napoli, Maria
2006Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Nemoto, Noriko
2005Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in Construction Grammar. In Mirjam Fried & Hans Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 118–136. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newman, John
2004Motivating the uses of basic verbs: Linguistic and extralinguistic considerations. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 193–218. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, John & Jingxia Lin
2007The purposefulness of going: A corpus-linguistic study. In Jacek Waliński, Krzysztof Kredens & Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.), Corpora and ICT in language studies (Łódź Studies in Language 13), 293–308. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Newman, John & Sally Rice
2006Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 225–260. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Asymmetry in English multi-verb sequences: A corpus-based approach. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), Asymmetric events, 3–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve
2009Go-and-V, come-and-V, go-V and come-V. A corpus-based account of deictic movement verb constructions. English Text Construction 2(2). 185–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana & Boris Maslov
2013Redefining constructio praegnans: On the variation between allative and locative expressions in Ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics. 13(1). 105–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana
2013Lexical splits in the encoding of motion events from Archaic to Classical Greek. In: Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events, 185–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pantazidis, Ioannis
1888Homeric lexicon [in Greek]. Athens: Anestis Konstantinidis.Google Scholar
Quecke, Hans
1972Das Markusevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 4). Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.Google Scholar
1977Das Lukasevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 181 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 6). Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.Google Scholar
1984Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschriften 813 und 814 der Chester Beatty Library und der Handschrift M 569 (Papyrologica Castroctaviana 11). Rome/Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.Google Scholar
[ p. 68 ]
Radden, Günter
1996Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 423–458. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reintges, Chris
2015The Old and Early Middle Egyptian Stative: Morphosyntax – Semantics – Typology. In Eitan Grossman, Martin Haspelmath & Tonio S. Richter (eds.), Egyptian-Coptic linguistics in typological perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 55), 387–454. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David
1988Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, 140–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros
2002Lokale konstruktionen im Griechischen: Sprachwandel in funktionaler Sicht. Erfurt: University of Erfurt dissertation.Google Scholar
2008aGrammaticalization and sets of form-function pairs: Encoding spatial concepts in Greek. In Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas, Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina & Johannes Helmbrecht (eds.), Studies on grammaticalization, 25–56. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bEncoding spatial relations: Language typology and diachronic change in Greek. Language Typology and Universals 61(1). 54–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2000The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB construction. In Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good et al. (eds.), The 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 259–270. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Thomas Herbst
2011Argument structure – Valency and/or constructions? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 315–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vries, Lourens de
2007Some remarks on the use of Bible translations as parallel texts in linguistic research. Language Typology and Universals 2. 148–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westendorf, Wolfhart
2008Koptisches Handwörterbuch, 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David P. & Deborah Hill
1995When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6(2–3). 209–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, Michel
1957Concordance du Nouveau Testament sahidique II. Les mots autochthones 1. ⲁ-ⲛ (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 173. Subsidia 11). Louvain: Sécretariat du Corpus SCO.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie
2006Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy?. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–125. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yates, Anthony D.
2011Homeric BH Δ’IENAI: A diachronic and comparative approach. Georgia: University of Georgia MA thesis.Google Scholar
2014aHomeric ΒΗ Δ’ΙΕΝΑΙ: A serial verb construction in Greek?. The 145th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association, http://​www​.pies​.ucla​.edu​/resources​/ady​/talks​/YATES​-BEDIENAI​-F​.pdf
[ p. 69 ]
2014bOn the PIE ‘Quasi-serial verb’ construction: Origin and development. In Stephanie W. Jamison, Harold C. Melchert et al. (eds.), The 25th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 237–255. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Zalizniak, Anna, Maria Bulakh, Dimitrij Ganenkov, Ilya Gruntov, Timur Maisak & Maxim Russo
2012The catalogue of semantic shifts as a database for lexical semantic typology. Linguistics 50(3). 633–670. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Ioannou, Georgios
2020. Image schemas as prototypes in the diachronic evolution of kámnō and eutheiázō in Greek: A behavioural-profile analysis. Lingua 245  pp. 102938 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.