Article published in:
Argument Realization in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 3] 2016
► pp. 363402
References
Ambrazas, Vytautas
(ed.) 2005Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Grammar of modern Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2006Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter
2010Notes on the Lithuanian restrictive. Baltic Linguistics 1: 9–49.Google Scholar
2011On the aspectual uses of the prefix .be- in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2: 37–78.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter & Pakerys, Jurgis
2015Lithuanian morphological causatives. In Voice and Argument Structure in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 2],. Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau (eds), 39–97. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria
1997Prefixed verbs and adjunct identification. In Projections and Interface Conditions. Essays on Modularity, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed), 52–73. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Endzelin, Jan
1906Latyšskie predlogi [Latvian Prepositions], vol. 2. Jur’ev: K. Mattisen.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma
1987The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Vinker, Sten
1993Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In Knowledge and Language, vol.2: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds), 143–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Ackerman, Farrell
2001The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77 (4): 798–814. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Judžentis, Artūras
2004Tranzityvumo samprata [The notion of transitivity]. In Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai, Axel Holvoet and Loreta Semėnienė, (eds), 59–76. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Semėnienė, Loreta
2005Veiksnio ir tiesioginio papildinio sąvokos [The notions of subject and direct object]. In Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai, Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas (eds), 39–64. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56 (2): 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kozhanov, Kirill
2014Priešdėlio .da.- semantika lietuvių kalboje [The semantics of the prefix da- in Lithuanian]. In Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankirtos, Tat’jana Civjan, Marija Zavjalova and Artūras Judžentis (eds), 254–276. Vilnius: Versmė.Google Scholar
Krongauz, Maksim A.
1998Pristavki i glagoly v russkom jazyke: semantičeskaja grammatika [Prefixes and Verbs in Russian: A Semantic Grammar]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian & Verhoeven, Elisabeth
2006Extraversive transitivization in Yucatec Maya and the nature of the applicative. In Case, Valency and Transitivity, Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov and Peter de Swart (eds), 465–493. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenartaitė, Kristina
2007Lietuvių kalbos argumentų raiškos alternacijos ir aplikacinės gramatikos priemonės joms aiškinti [Lithuanian alternations in argument realization: An Applicative Grammar account]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 57: 17–44.Google Scholar
2011Argumentų raiškos alternavimas lietuvių kalboje [Alternations in Argument Realization in Lithuanian]. PhD Thesis. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas & Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Letučij, Aleksandr B.
2012Vvodjat li russkie pristavki prjamoe dopolnenie? [Do Russian prefixes introduce a direct object?]. In Problemy jazyka: Sbornik naučnyx statej po materialam Pervoj konferencii-školy “Problemy jazyka: vzgljad molodyx učenyx” (20–22 sentjabrja 2012 g.), E. M. Devjatkina, et al. (eds), 124–139. Moskva: Institut jazykoznanija RAN.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2003Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics: Germanic prefixes and particles. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 119–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike
1991Towards a typology of valence. In Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten, Hansjakob Seiler and Waldfried Premper (eds), 240–251. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Paulauskas, Jonas
1958Veiksmažodžių preišdėlių funkcijos dabartinėje lietuvių literatūrinėje kalboje [The functions of verbal prefixes in modern standard Lithuanian]. Literatūra ir kalba 3: 303–453.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A.
2007Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
1991The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41: 47–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seržant, Ilja A.
2014The independent partitive genitive in Lithuanian. In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic [Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic, 1], Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau (eds), 257–299. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1996Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 157–194. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sližienė, Nijolė
1994–2004 .Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodžių junglumo žodynas. [Dictionary of Lithuanian Verb Valency]. 3 vols. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas & Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zaretskaya, Marina
1998Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36: 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergej G.
2009Množestvennaja prefiksacija i anatomija russkogo glagola [Multiple prefixation and the anatomy of the Russian verb]. In Korpusnye issledovanija po russkoj grammatike [Corpus-Based Studies in Russian Grammar], Ksenija L. Kiseleva, Vladimir А. Plungjan, Еkaterina V. Raxilina and Sergej G. Tatevosov (eds), 92–156. Мoskva: Probel-2000.Google Scholar