Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 48:1 (2024) ► pp.181227
References
Beavers, John
2010The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86(4). 821–864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John & Andrew Koontz-Garboden
2020The roots of verbal meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen-Ren
1968A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
COCA Corpus of Contemporary American English
Available at: [URL] (last access 16 July 2023).
Dixon, R. M. W.
2009–2012Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 1: Methodology> (2009); Vol. 2: Grammatical topics (2010); Vol. 3: Further grammatical topics (2012). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina & Elena Sokur
2022Spoken corpora of Slavic languages. Russian Linguistics 46(3). 77–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
1979Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, Shengli
2019Prosodic syntax of Chinese. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1968The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–25. London: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2004Tense and aspect as coding means. In Bernard Comrie & Ekkehard Wolff (eds), Journal of West African Languages Special Issue 30(2). 53–67.Google Scholar
2018Coding locative predication in Chadic. In Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspectives, 203–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022Toward a functional typology of adpositions. Theoretical implications. Folia Linguistica 56(1). 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2023A typology of reference systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Natalia Gurian & Sergei Karpenko
2021Formation of grammar by adult speakers: The case of Sino-Russian idiolects. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Meichun Liu & Yingying Ye
2020The reference system of Modern Mandarin. Australian Journal of Linguistics 40(1). 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2010Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S.
1965Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
Hagège, Clause
2010Adpositions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
Huang, James C. T., Audrey Li & Yafei Li
2009The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kandell, Eric
2006In search of memory. New York-London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Clive Perdue
1997The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13(4). 301–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy
1990Grammatical relations in Chinese: Synchronic and diachronic considerations. Berkeley: University of California PhD dissertation.
LaPolla, Randy J.
1993Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct object’ as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 63(4). 759–813.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
2001La typologie actancielle. In Lazard, Gilbert, (ed.), Études de linguistique générale. Typologie grammaticale, 65–78. Leuven-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Steven Pinker
(eds.) 1991Lexical and conceptual semantics. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
1981Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham & Barry J. Blake
1981Language typology. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter
1997The concise Oxford Dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2004On the assumption of the sentence as the basic unit of syntactic structure. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, David Rood & Adam Hodges (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories. [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], 169–183. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne & Wallace Chafe
1999What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language 23(3). 579–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moretti, Lucia, Marleen Hentrup, Kurt Kotrschal & Friederike Range
2015The influence of relationships on neophobia and exploration in wolves and dogs. Animal Behavior 1071. 159–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perekhval’skaya, E. V. / Перехвальская Е. В
2013Pусско-китайский пиджин и pусский “интepязык” [Russian-Chinese pidgin and the Russian ‘interlanguage’]. Труды института лингвистических исследований. v. IX1, part 3. St. Petersburg: NaukaGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
1995The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Edit Doron and Ivy Sichel
2010Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Kurt Malcher & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
2019How universal is agent-first? Evidence from symmetrical voice languages. Language 95(3). 523–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, Larry
1972Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 101. 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena
2019Argument selectors: A new perspective on grammatical relations. An introduction. In Witzlack-Makarevich & Bickel (eds.), Argument selectors. A new perspective on grammatical relations, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Balthasar Bickel