Article published in:
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 99150
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Brucale, Luisa & Egle Mocciaro
2016.  In Embodiment in Latin Semantics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 174],  pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo
Fedriani, Chiara & Michele Prandi
2016.  In Advances in Research on Semantic Roles [Benjamins Current Topics, 88],  pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Petros Karatsareas
2017.  In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188],  pp. 179 ff. Crossref logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
2021. Lexical diachronic semantic maps. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:3  pp. 367 ff. Crossref logo
Kalyuga, Marika
2020.  In Russian Prepositional Phrases,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Kalyuga, Marika
2020.  In Russian Prepositional Phrases,  pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019.  In World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, Crossref logo
Lewis, Diana M.
2017.  In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188],  pp. 329 ff. Crossref logo
Luraghi, Silvia
2016. The dative of agent in Indo-European languages. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 69:1  pp. 15 ff. Crossref logo
Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze
2017.  In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188],  pp. 207 ff. Crossref logo
Vázquez-González, Juan G. & Jóhanna Barðdal
2019. Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic . Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2  pp. 555 ff. Crossref logo
Zanchi, Chiara
2017.  In Space in Diachrony [Studies in Language Companion Series, 188],  pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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.



Amritavalli R.
2004Experiencer datives in Kannada. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), 1–24.
Anderson, John M.
1971The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bennett, David C.
1989Ablative-locative transfers: Evidence from Slovene and Serbo-Croat. Oxford Slavonic Papers 22: 133–154.Google Scholar
Bentley, John R.
2001A Descriptive Grammar of Early Old Japanese Prose. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2004The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. In Bhaskararao & Subbarao (eds), 77–112.
Bhaskararao, Peri & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata
(eds) 2004Non-nomitative Subjects, Vol. 1 [Typological Studies in Language 60]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1977Case marking in Australian languages [Linguistic Series 23]. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Blansitt Jr., Edward L.
1988Datives and allatives. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 173–191. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & van den Berg, Helma
2006Experiencer constructions in Daghestanian languages. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds), 127–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1970Einführung in die Strukturelle Betrachtung des Wortschatzes. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Creissel, Denis & Mounole, Céline
2011Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies and the case of Basque. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 155–182.
Croft, William
1991Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Rene Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds), 161–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael A. & Ganenkov, Dmitri S.
2008Case marking in Daghestanian. In Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1867Ablativ localis instrumentalis im Altindischen. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1997The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2 Vols., 2nd edn, Kees Hengeveld (ed.). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
2002Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne Martine, Thomason, Olga A. & de Swart, Peter
2013Mapping out the source domain. Studies in Language 37(2): 302–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati & Metslang, Helle
2006Estonian clause patterns – from Finno-Ugric to standard average European. Linguistica Uralica 42(4): 254–266.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2004The Structure of Time. Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry S.
2006Experiencer coding in Nakh-Daghestanian. In Case, Valency and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 179–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert
(eds) 2007The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive. Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grünthal, Riho
2003Finnic Adpositions and Cases in Change. Helsinki: Societé Finno-ougrienne.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2008Alignment change in Iranian languages: A Construction Grammar account. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997From Space to Time. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
1999External possession in a European areal perspective. In External Possession [Typological Studies in Language 39], Doris Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds), 109–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Havers, Wilhelm
1911Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Heine Bernd
1997aAuxiliaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997bCognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2002World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich
1990Der Agens in passivischen Sätzen altindogermanischer Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1935/37La catégorie des cas. Acta Jutlandica 7(1): xii–184 & 9(2): viii–78.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas
1996Domain shifts and the grammaticalization of case: A case study of the Finnish adessive. Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 73–95.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki, Joki, Aulis J. & Peltola, Reino
1978Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja, Vol. 6. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura
1993A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, István, Vago, Robert M. & Fenyvesi, Anna
1997Hungarian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2010Beneficiary coding in Finnish. In Kittilä & Zúñiga (eds), 245–270.
2005Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2): 269–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Zúñiga, Fernando
2010Introduction: Benefaction and malefaction form a cross-linguistic perspective. In Zúñiga & Kittilä (eds),1–28.
Kittilä, Seppo, Västi, Katja & Ylikoski, Jussi
(eds) 2011Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1997Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1964Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1977Linguistic Gestalts. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 236–287. Chicago IL: CLS.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark
1980Metaphors we Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark
1989More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, Espenson, Jane & Schwartz, Alan
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
. 22002Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 2nd, revised edn. [Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9]. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin
2005The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Typological Studies in Participation, Christian Lehmann (ed.), 9–104. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu, Hofmann, Johann Baptist & Szantyr, Anton
1965Lateinische Syntax und Silistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia
1989Cause and instrument expressions in Classical Greek. Mnemosyne 43: 294–308.Google Scholar
1995Prototypicality and agenthood in Indo-European. In Historical Linguistics 1993 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 124], Henning Andersen (ed.), 259–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Spatial metaphors and agenthood in Ancient Greek. In 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, Christian Zinko & Michaela Offisch (eds), 283–298. Graz: Leykam.Google Scholar
2001aSyncretism and the classification of semantic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(1): 35–51.Google Scholar
2001bSome remarks on instrument, comitative, and agent in Indo-European. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54(4): 385–401.Google Scholar
2003On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. A Study of the Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005aPrepositions in cause expressions. Papers on Grammar 12(2): 609–619.Google Scholar
2005bPaths of semantic extension. From cause to beneficiary and purpose. In Historical Linguistics 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257], Michael Fortescue, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds), 141–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005cThe history of the Greek preposition metá: From polysemy to the creation of homonyms. Glotta 81: 130–159.Google Scholar
2009The evolution of local cases and their grammatical equivalent in Greek and Latin. In The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108], Johanna Barðdal & Shobhann L. Chelliah (eds), 283–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010aAdverbial phrases. In A New Historical Syntax of Latin, Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 19–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010bExperiencer predicates in Hittite. In Ex Anatolia Lux, Ronald I. Kim, Elizabeth Rieken, Norbert Oettinger & Michael J. Weiss (eds), 249–264. Ann Arbor MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
2010cWhere do beneficiaries come from and how do they come about? In Historical Cognitive Linguistics, Margaret Winters, Heli Tissari & Kathryn Allan (eds), 93–131. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011Human landmarks in spatial expressions: From Latin to Romance. In Kittilä, Västi & Ylikoski (eds), 207–234.
2013aThe mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction: Beneficiaries that are not Recipients and their sources. Paper read at the 10th International Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (Leipzig, 15–18 August 2013).
2013bThe dative of agent in Indo-European languages. Paper read at the Workshop historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (Salzburg, 22–24 November 2013).
Forthcoming. External possessor constructions in Indo-European. In Reconstructing Syntax. Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Lujan & Spike Gildea (eds) Leiden Brill
Luraghi, Silvia & Sausa, Eleonora
Forthcoming. Hate and anger, love and desire: The construal of emotions in Homeric Greek. In Historical Linguistics 2013, Dag T. Haug (ed) Amsterdam Benjamins
Lyons, John
1977Semantics, Vols I & II. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
1978Ablative-locative transfers and their relevance for the theory of case-grammar. Journal of Linguistics 14: 129–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A.
1986Heans and minds in South-East Asian languages and Engüsh: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie-orientale 15: 5–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2010aAuthor’s reply to ‘The Best of Two Maps’ by Sander Lestrade. Linguistic Discovery 8(1): 257–258.Google Scholar
2010bVoice and non-canonical marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. A cross-linguistic study. Linguistic Typology 14(1): 71–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki
1991The meaning of the genitive. Cognitive Linguistics 2(2): 149–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, Tatiana & Spano, Marianna
Forthcoming. ‘Behind’ and ‘in front’ in Ancient Greek: A case study in orientation asymmetry. In Ort und Bewegung: Linguistischen Arbeiten zu Sprachen der Antike, Silvia Kutscher & Daniel Werning (eds) Berlin Mouton de Gruyter
Noonan, Michael
2009Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case [Studies in Language Companion Series 108], Johanna Barðdal & Shobhanna Chelliah (eds), 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina
2010The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48(5): 1043–1081. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda L.
2007Metonymy. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds), 236–263.
Pennacchietti, Fabrizio
1974Appunti per una storia comparata dei sistemi preposizionali semitici. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 34(2): 161–183.Google Scholar
Pompeo, Flavia & Carmela Benvenuto, Maria
2011Il genitivo in persiano antico. Un caso esemplare di categoria polisemica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 49: 75–123.Google Scholar
Pütz, Martin
1996Introduction: Language and the cognitive construal of space. In The Construal of Language and Thought [Cognitive Linguistics Research 8], Martin Pütz & Rene Dirven (eds), xi–xxiii. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter
1989Semantic roles. In A User’s Grammar of English, Rene Dirven & Richard A. Geiger (eds), 421–471. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael
1979The conduit metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kabata, Kaori
2007Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11: 451–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez Aristar, Anthony
1996The relationship between dative and locative: Kurylowicz’s argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13: 207–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sands, Kristina & Lyle Campbell
2001Non-canonical subjects and objects in Finnish. In A. Aikenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, and M. Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, 251–305. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
2010The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. In Zúñiga & Kittlä (eds), 121–146.
Schwyzer, Eduard
1950Griechische Grammatik, Band 2: Syntax. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
1992Lokalkasussysteme. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag.Google Scholar
2001aComitatives vs. instrumentals vs. agents. In Aspects of Typology and Universals, Walter Bisang (ed.), 153–174. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2001bTo be with X is to have X: Comitatives, instrumentals, locative and predicative possession. Linguistics 39(2): 321–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina
2006On comitatives and Related Categories. A Typological Study with Special Focus on the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
1989aPossessive genitives in English. Linguistics 27(4–6): 663–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989bLinguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Toyota, Junichi
2011The Grammatical Voice in Japanese: A Typological Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David
2007Schematicity. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds), 82–116.
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan
2003The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Sciences, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J.
1997Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude
1994Methodology and analysis of the preposition. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2): 157–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth
2008Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya [Studies in Language Companion Series 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vovin, Alexander
2005A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Folkestone: Global Oriental.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Heinrich
1879Ueber den instrumentalis im Rigveda, Tübingen: Laupp.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan
2007Spatial semantics. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds), 318–350.
Zúñiga, Fernando & Kittilä, Seppo
(eds) 2010Benefactives and Malefactives. Case Studies and Typological Perspectives [Typological Studies in Language 92]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar