Article published in:
Source-Goal (a)symmetries across languages
Edited by Anetta Kopecka and Marine Vuillermet
[Studies in Language 45:1] 2021
► pp. 109129
References

References

Arias Oliveira, Roberto Carlos
2012Boundary-crossing: Eine Untersuchung zum Deutschen, Französischen und Spanischen. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Aurnague, Michel
2011How motion verbs are spatial: The spatial foundations of intransitive motion verbs in French. Lingvisticae Investigationes 34(1). 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas J. Enfield, James Scobey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix K. Ameka
2007Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83(3). 495–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borillo, Andrée
1998L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe
1997On goal-bias across languages: modal, configurational and orientational parameters. In Palek, Bohumil (ed.), Proceedings of LP ‘96: Typology: prototypes, item orderings and universals, proceedings of the conference held in Prague, August 20–22, 1996, 185–216. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2006Encoding the distinction between location, source, and destination: A typological study. In Maya Hickmann & Robert, Stéphane (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 19–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1971/75Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1972How to know whether you’re coming or going. In Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen (ed.) Linguistik 1971: Referate des 6. Linguistischen Kolloquiums 11.–14. August 1971 in Kopenhagen, 369–379. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
Hamp, Paul
1967 [1888]Die zusammengesetzten Präpositionen im Lateinischen. Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik V. 321–367.Google Scholar
Hottenroth, Priska-Monika
1993Prepositions and object concepts: A contribution to cognitive semantics. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.). The Semantics of prepositions. From mental processing to natural language processing, 179–219. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio, Luisa Corona, Noemi De Pasquale & Alfonsina Buoniconto
2017How should a “classical” satellite-framed language behave? Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.). Space in diachrony, 95–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko
1987Source vs. Goal: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In René Dirven & Günter Radden (eds.). Concepts of case, 122–146. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ilinski, Kirill
2003La préposition et son régime. Étude des cas atypiques. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki, Anetta Kopecka & Marine Vuillermet
2006Trajectoire: Matériel visuel pour élicitation des données linguistiques. Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage (CNRS / Université Lyon 2) – Fédération de Recherche en Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques, CNRS, France.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, Miyuki
2012The expression of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’ events in Japanese: The asymmetry of Source and Goal revisited. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.). Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, 253–272. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopecka, Anetta
2009L’expression du déplacement en français: l’interaction des facteurs sémantiques, aspectuels et pragmatiques dans la construction du sens spatial. Langages 173. 54–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, Laura & Barbara Landau
2005Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition 96. 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Naigles, Letitia, Ann R. Eisenberg, Edward T. Kako, Melissa Highter & Nancy McGraw
1998Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 13(5). 521–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1992Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Loretta
2012Take it up, down, and away: Encoding placement and removal in Lowland Chontal. In Anetta Kopecka & Bhuvana Narasimhan (eds.). Events of ‘putting’ and ‘taking’: A crosslinguistic perspective, 297–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Özçalișkan, Șeyda
2013Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(2). 1–24.Google Scholar
Papahagi, Cristiana
2015Les prépositions de la trajectoire en français et en roumain. Cluj: Casa Cărții de Știință.Google Scholar
Pléh, Csaba
1998Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. In Karen Emmorey, Judy S. Reilly & Eve V. Clark (ed.). Proceedings of the twenty-ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 211–219. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, Chris & Tania Kuteva
1995Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18. 167–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan
1997Mind, code, and text. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Essays on language function and language type, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan. & Nini Hoiting
1994Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. In Richard Rhodes, Susanne Gahl, Chris Johnson & Andy Dolbey. Proceedings of the twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 487–505. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Ada Rohde
2004The Goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation, 249–267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008Lexical typologies. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 66–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
1996An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude
1987La préposition à et le principe d’anticipation. Langue française 76. 77–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, René Dirven & Günter Radden
1999Putting concepts together: Syntax. In René Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor (eds.). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics, 79–105. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Fernando Zúñiga
2006Source-Goal (in)difference and the typology of motion events in the clause. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(3). 284–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar