Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:4 (2021) ► pp. 753–790

Prolegomena to a theory of chorophorics

| Central China Normal University

The goal of this paper is to offer a theoretical analysis of chorophorics, a recently proposed pro-formal category that can refer either to “places”, or to locations as arguments of spatial relations. It is suggested that chorophorics are a common category that displays heterogeneous morphological properties but homogeneous syntactic distribution and semantic interpretation. Evidence supporting this argument is offered via eight genetically unrelated languages. The evidence shows that at least three different types of chorophorics can be individuated across languages: chorophorics as a sub-type of prepositions, of case-marked nouns or of postpositions. A formal account is offered, based on a Lexical Syntax analysis. The account shows that chorophorics share a similar distribution with prepositional phrases and receive their “place” sense from their distribution in discourse contexts.

Keywords: spatial adpositions, spatial nouns, chorophorics, lexical typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
  • 3.Background assumptions and methodology
  • 4.The data
    • 4.1Prepositional languages: Aquilan and Hebrew
    • 4.2Case languages: Korean, Arrernte, Estonian and Tsez
    • 4.3Postpositional languages: Mandarin and Fongbè
    • 4.4Interim discussion
  • 5.The Analysis
    • 5.1The analysis: Syntactic and morphological structures
    • 5.2Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 03 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19072.urs
References
Adger, David
2010 A minimalist theory of feature structures. In Anna Kibort & Greville Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 185–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alekseev, Mikhail E. & Ramazan N. Rajabov
1991 Tsez Language. In Michael Job (ed.), Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 31, 70–101. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
1993 Prerequisites to the formation of Tsez writing system. In George Hewitt (ed.), Caucasian perspectives, 372–376. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Amelka, Felix & Stephen C. Levinson
2007 Introduction – The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts. Linguistics 451. 847–872.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M.
2007 The grammar of names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna
2008 The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. & Paul Sablayrolles
1995 A typology and discourse semantics for motion verbs and spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics 121. 163–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aurnague, Michel
1998 Basque genitives and part-whole relations: typical configurations and dependences. Carnets de Grammaire Rapports Internes de l’ERSS 11. 1–62.Google Scholar
Avolio, Francesco
1992 Il problema dei questionari e la metodologia d’inchiesta nei primi rilevamenti per il vocabolario dei dialetti della Sabina e dell’Aquilano (VDSA). ALIR 11. 557–575.Google Scholar
1993 Problemi di interlinguisticità dialettale. Contatti e reazioni linguistiche sul ‘confine’ mediano-meridionale: modellizazione sabina e ‘abruzzesità’ vestina con particolare riguardo al sinecismo aquilano. Sassari: Università di Sassari PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2009 Tra Abruzzo e Sabina. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Bandecchi, Valeria
2013 Lexicalization of the Manner Component: Evidence from Italian. Dublin: University College Dublin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
2001 Case, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Jim P.
2005 Word-based declensions in Estonian. In Gert Booij, & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Boone, Enrico
2014 The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Botwinik, Irena & Arhonto Terzi
2006 Greek and Hebrew locative prepositional phrases: A unified case-driven account. Lingua 1181. 399–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Botwinik, Irena
2008 Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. In Anna Asbury, Berit Gehrke, Jakub Dotlačil, & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 331–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 A closer look at the Hebrew Construct and Free locative PPs: the analysis of mi-locatives. In Dennis Kurzon & Silvia Adler (eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives, 85–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2004 The category P: Features, projections, interpretation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Eric Pederson
1992 Cross-linguistic studies of spatial semantic organization. In Penelope Brown, Gunter Senft & Linda Wheeldon (eds.), Annual report of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 53–56. Nimejgen: Max Planck Institute Press.Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan & Rob Pensalfini
1999 Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry 301. 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurie J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia
1988 The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009 The nanosyntax of case. Trømso: Trømso University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Canac-Marquis, Marie
1986 Sur le statut categorique et syntactique de P en Fon. In Claire Lefevbre & Jonathan Kaye (eds.), Études syntactiques, morphologiques et phonologiques. Research prepared for SSHRCC, FCAR and PAFAC on the project Recherche de Haiti-Fon, 41–53. Montréal: Université du Quebec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin
1996 Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Alain Peyraube
2008 Chinese localizers: Diachrony and some typological considerations. In Dan Xu (ed.), Space in languages of China, 15–37. Berlin: Springer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choi-Jonin, Injoo
2008 Particles and postpositions in Korean. In Dennis Kurzon & Silvia Adler (eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 74), 133–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi
(eds.) 2010 The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coffin, Edna A. & Shmuel Bolozky
(eds.) 2005 A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. & M. Polinsky
1998 The great Daghestanian case hoax. In Anna Siewierska & Jung Jae Song (eds.), Case, typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake. 95–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1988 General features of the Uralic languages. In Sinor Denis (ed.), The Uralic languages, 451–477. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Creary, Lewis, Jean Mark Gawron & John Nerbonne
1987 Towards a theory of locative reference. In Jonathan Hirschberg (ed.), Proceedings of the ASL 1987, 34–40. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J.
1978 Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(1). 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael
2005 Quantitative methods in typology. In Gabriel Altmann, Reinhard Köhler & Ron Piotrowski (eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook, 559–577. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, & Diana Forker
2009 Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Non-spatial use of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 851. 588–617. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danon, Gabi
2011 Definiteness agreement with PP modifiers. In Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon & Susan Rothstein (eds.), Generative approaches to Hebrew linguistics, 70–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2005 Adpositions as a non-universal category. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David Rood (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Djamouri, Redouane, Paul Waltraud & John Whitman
2013 Postpositions vs. prepositions in Mandarin Chinese: The articulation of disharmony. In Theresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, 69–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew
2013 Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/85, last access 12 July 2020.
Enç, Mürvet
1991 The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 221, 1–25.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas, Asifa Majid & Miriam van Staden
2006 Cross-linguistic categorization of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences 281. 137–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati
(ed.) 2003 Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
1988 Chinese postpositions? – Again. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 161. 219–245.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2009 Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In Vyvyan Evans & Stefanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 50–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2012 Semantic typology. In J. J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 504–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio
2012 A guide to IL and SL in Spanish: Properties, problems and proposals. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 11. 3–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2018 The semantic map Model State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(9). 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giammarco, Ernesto
1973 Abruzzo dialettale. Pescara: Istituto di Studi Abruzzesi.Google Scholar
Glinert, Lewis
1991 Modern Hebrew: An essential grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, Barbara F.
(ed.) 1996 Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 13th edn. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Habicht, Külli
2001 On the genesis and loss of the adposition rinnas (‘abreast, beside’) in Literary Estonian. In Ilona Tragel (ed.), Papers in Estonian cognitive linguistics, 71–89. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude
2010 Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Chorophorics, or the difference between place as an entity and place as a position in space. In Tim Thornes (ed.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honour of Scott DeLancey, 27–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
2013 Head directionality – in syntax and morphology. In Antonio Fábregas, Jaume Mateu & Michael Putnam (eds.), The handbook of parameters, 68–83. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser
2002 Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harkins, Jean & Dan P. Wilkins
1994 Mparntwe Arrernte and the search for lexical universals. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 285–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2003 Adpositions. In William Frawley (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, 2nd edn, 407–430. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2007 The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction (Studies in the Evolution of Language 9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2003 Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition 411. 9–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jürine, Anni
2015 The development of complex postpositions in Estonian: A case of grammaticalization via lexicalization. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kang, Yungkyoung
2012 A cognitive linguistics approach to the semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Washington, D.C.: Washington Georgetown University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej
2013 Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevkaja-Tamm, Maria
2008 Approaching lexical typology. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, 3–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2012 New directions in lexical typology. Linguistic Typology 121, 373–394.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1998 The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lefevbre, Claire & Anne-Marie Brusseau
2002 A grammar of Fongbè. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lefevbre, Claire
1989 Complex prepositional phrases: another case of serialisation. In Claire Lefevbre (ed.) Études syntactiques, morphologiques et phonologiques. Research prepared for SSHRCC, FCAR and PAFAC on the project Recherche de Haiti-Fon, 278–293. Montréal: Université du Quebec à Montréal.Google Scholar
1990 Establishing a category P in Fon. The Journal of Western African Languages 211. 21–35.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2012 Converse Categorization Strategies. In Maria Koptjevkaja–Tamm & Martine Vanhove (eds.), New directions in lexical typology. Special issue of Linguistics 50(3). 467–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, Sander
2010 The space of case. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen & Sergio Meira
2003 Natural concepts in the Spatial Topological Domain – Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 791. 485–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Dan P. Wilkins
(eds.) 2006 Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1994 Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 321. 791–856. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity, vol. 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson
1982 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Libert, Alan R.
2013 Adpositions and other parts of speech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Liu, Feng-Hsi
1998 A clitic analysis of locative particles. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 261. 48–70.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer
(ed.) 2011 The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume
2002 Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume, & Laia Amadas
2001 Syntactic tools for semantic construal. Paper presented at 1st Conference on Tools in Linguistic Theory. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS , Utrecht, 6–8 July 2001. Available at http://​filcat​.uab​.cat​/clt​/publicacions​/reports​/pdf​/GGT​-01​-12​.pdf, last access 12 July 2020.
Merchant, Jason
2001 The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 271. 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nam, Senghuo
1995 The semantics of locative prepositional phrases in English. Los Angeles: UCLA PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Seongha Rhee
2001 Grammaticalization of space in Korean and Japanese. In Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Shared grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages, 170–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2015 Tsez syntax: A description. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, Elena & Reznikova, Teresa
2016 A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In Pauli Juvonen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The lexical typology of semantic shifts, 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, Seongha
2004 A comparative analysis of grammaticalization of English and Korean adpositions. Studies in Modern Grammar 401. 209–233.Google Scholar
Rygaloff, Alexis
1973 Grammaire elementaire du chinois. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Hans C. Boas & Paul Kay
2012 Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–189. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Siloni, Tal
2002 Construct states at the PF-interface. In Pierre Pica & Johann Rooryck (eds.), The yearbook of language variations 11, 229–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
2005 The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
2007 Lexical typology, lexical contact and creolization. In Wiltrud Mihatsch & Monika Sokol (eds.), Language contact and language change in the Caribbean and beyond, 19–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze
2017 When zero is just enough …In support of a special toponymic grammar in Maltese. Folia Linguistica 511. 453–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Christel Stolz
2014 The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2006 The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd 331. 49–77.Google Scholar
2010 Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svorou, Soteris
1994 The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000 Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: the MIT press.Google Scholar
Tauli, Valter
1973 Standard Estonian grammar. Phonology, morphology, word formation, vol. 11. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 8). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2005 Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job, & Peter R. Lutzeier (eds.), Lexikologie / Lexicology, vol. 21, 1702–1712. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tseng, Jesse
2000 The representation and selection of prepositions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, & Vyvyan Evans
2003 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Haiping Long
2018a Spatial categories in Aquilan. Dialectologia.& Geolinguistica 261. 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018b On spatial nouns and adpositions in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics (특집호) 811. 193–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 Chorophorics in the Aquilan dialect. Studia Linguistica 74 (2) 471–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Zee, Emile
2000 Why we talk about bulging barrels and spinning spirals: Curvature representation and lexical interface. In Emile van der Zee & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces, 70–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude
2010 Genesis of spatial terms. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions, 171–192. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Veismann, Ann
2009 Eesti kaas– ja määrsõnade semantika võimalusi [Semantics of Estonian adpositions and adverbs] (Dissertationes Linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 11). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk & Joost Zwarts
1992 Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: The motion of path. Linguistics 301. 483–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vignuzzi, Ugo
1997 Lazio, Umbria and the Marche. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 311–321. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1999 The evolution of c-structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo–European to Romance. Linguistics 371. 1111–1153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus
2012 Specificity. In Claudia Maierborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1025–1058. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Dan P.
2000 Towards an Arrernte grammar of space. In Stephen C. Levinson & Dan P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space, 24–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1995 More than just wishful thinking: The survival of Arrernte worldview is historical fact, not romantic fiction. Oceania Newsletter 151. 8–12.Google Scholar
1997 The verbalization of motion events in Arrernte (Central Australia). In Eve Clark (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual child language research forum, 295–308. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1989 Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
1991 How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 291. 591–621. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina
2017 Adpositions. In Rint Sybesma, Wolfgang Behr, Yueguo Gu, Zev Handel, James Huang & James Myers (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Chinese language and linguistics, 60–90. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost
1997 Vectors as relative positions. Journal of Semantics 141. 57–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Aspects of a typology of direction. In Susan Rothstein (eds.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects, 79–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010a A hierarchy of locations: Evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions and cases. Linguistics 481. 983–1009. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b Forceful prepositions. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, 193–214. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost, & Yoad Winter
2000 Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 91. 169–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar