Article published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp. 717751
References
Ahmed, Tafseer
2006Spatial, temporal, and structural usages of Urdu ko . Paper presented at the LFG06 Conference, University of Konstanz, Germany.
Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri V. Subbarao
2004Non-nominative subjects, vol. 11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao, Peri & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol.11, 77–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang & Yogendra P. Yadava
1999Face vs. empathy: the social foundations of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37(3). 481–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yogendra P. Yadava
2000A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5). 343–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols
2009Case marking and alignment. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 304–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J
2001Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam
2009Modern approach to case: An overview. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 27–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook
1995Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In Katalin E. Kiss (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 269–334. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, Mark
2008Semantic alignment systems: What’s what, and what’s not. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 24–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1997The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2007A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green
2006Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna & Cheong Youn
1988Korean psych constructions: Advancement or retreat?, Papers from the 24 th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 155–175. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
1989Non-nominative subjects in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics IV1, 249–268.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
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
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Ki-Sun
1991Argument selection and case marking in Korean. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Peter Sells
2010Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language 34(3). 602–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Young-joo
1990The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interaction between lexical and syntactic levels of representation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2002Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences 24(2). 107–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klaiman, M.H
1980Begali dative subject. Lingua 51(4). 275–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki & Ronald W. Langacker
2003Double-subject and complex predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 14(1). 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, Silke
2010Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses. Buffalo: University at Buffalo, State University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1984Active zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 101, 172–188. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Raising and transparency. Language 71(1). 1–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov. Andrej
2008Split infinitives, experiencer objects, and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-)establishing the connection. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 76–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mishra, Mithilesh
1990Dative/experiencer subjects in Maithili. In Manindra K. Verma & K.P. Mohanan (eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian Languages, 105–117. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 297–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Ashild
2007Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, Chongwon
2011The role of metonymy in the interpretation of Korean multiple subject constructions. Language Sciences 33(1). 206–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Metonymy in grammar: Korean multiple object constructions. Functions of Language 20(1). 31–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, Chongwon & Sook-kyung Lee
2009The evolution of Korean datives: Its formal and functional motivations. Language Research 45(2). 283–318.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
(ed.) 1995Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & René Dirven
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1990The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1999Dative subject constructions twenty-two years later. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 22(2). 45–76.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min
1999The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
1995The organization and document construction in Korean: A relational analysis. Linguistics 33(6). 763–808.Google Scholar
2011There’s more than “more animate”. In Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, Animacy, and Semantic Roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T
1996Korean ‘case stacking’ isn’t: Unifying noncase uses of case particles. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 261, 351–165. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
2001On Korean ‘case stacking’: The varied functions of the particles ka and lul . The Linguistic Review 18(3). 193–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri V
2001Agreement in South Asian languages and the minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 20011, 457–492. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Taylor, John
1996Possessives in English: An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1992First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ura, H
1999Checking theory and dative constructions in Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8(3). 223–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren
2008The study of semantic alignment: Retrospect and state of the art. In Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1996Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 Case in NSM: A reanalysis of the Polish dative . In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 151–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yadava, Yogendra P
2004Non-nominative subjects in Maithili. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 21, 253–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yeon, Jaehoon
2003Korean grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. London: Saffron.Google Scholar
Yoon, James H
1996Ambiguity of government and chain condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(1). 105–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Non-nominative subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Peri Bhaskararao & Karumuri V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, vol. 21, 265–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me
1989ECM and multiple subject constructions in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III1, 369–381. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Youn, Cheong
1990A Relational Analysis of Korean Multiple Nominative Constructions. Buffalo: University at Buffalo, State University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2007Spatial semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 318–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Reference Point and Case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 april 2022. 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.