Cover not available
Article published In:
Revisiting Shakespeare's Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi, Roberta Facchinetti, Silvia Cacchiani and Antonio Bertacca
[English Text Construction 11:1] 2018
► pp. 105–140

Taming iconicity in the Spanish and Italian translations of Shakespeare’s Sonnets

Some observations from a (Contrastive) (Cognitive) Construction Grammar perspective

| University of Almería
Building on Tabakowska’s (1993, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2013) full-blown defense of a cognitive linguistic approach to literary translation as well as on previous research dealing with the implementations of Construction Grammar(s) for translation studies (Szymańska 2011a, 2011b; Serbina 2015), this paper critically examines the role of iconicity in selected lines from Shakespeare’s Sonnets capitalizing on the passage of Time-Death and their corresponding translations in present-day Spanish and Italian. Specifically, drawing on Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 2006) and Contrastive Construction Grammar (Boas 2010a; Boas & Gonzálvez-García 2014), I focus on instances of secondary predication with verbs of sensory perception, causative constructions and aspectual constructions iconically connected with the above-mentioned motif and demonstrate that iconicity emerges as a very useful communicative ‘filter’ that can help to minimize any undesirable arbitrariness which may obscure the semantico-pragmatic interpretation of the source text and/or its rendering into the target text.
Keywords: Construction Grammar(s), iconicity, interlingual translation, Shakespeare, Sonnets
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity: Some initial working assumptions
  • 3.Construction Grammar(s) and interlingual translation
  • 4.Towards a constructionist account of verb complementation in English, Spanish, and Italian
  • 5.Some notes on the iconicity of Time-Death fracture in the Italian and Spanish translations of Shakespeare’s Sonnets
    • 5.1Some preliminary considerations
    • 5.2The sensory subjective-transitive construction
    • 5.3Causative constructions
  • 6.Closing remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Key to the translations used in this paper
  • References
Published online: 27 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00006.gon
References (130)
References
Achard, Michel. 1998. Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements (Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alm-Arvius, Christina. 1993. The English Verb See: A Study in Multiple Meaning. Göteborg: Acta Universitas Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Álvarez, José María. 1999. Sonetos. Valencia: Pre-Textos.Google Scholar
Baldini, Gabriele. 1992. William Shakespeare: Sonetti. Milan: Feltrinelli. (Translation by Lucifero Darchini.)Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. (ed.). 2010a. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b. Comparing constructions across languages. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds). 2014. Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 21: 119–127.Google Scholar
. 1974. Concept and percept: Two infinitive constructions and their vicissitudes. In World Papers in Phonetics: Festschrift for Dr. Onishi’s Kiju, Masao Ōnishi (ed.). Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan, 65–91.Google Scholar
. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1973. To be or not to be. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 91: 44–56.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1985. The iconic role of aspect in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129. Poetics Today 6 (3): 447–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Aspect. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 2nd ed., W. J. Frawley (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157–158.Google Scholar
Chamosa González, José Luis. 1997. Crítica y evaluación de traducciones: Elementos para su discusión. In Aproximaciones a los Estudios de Traducción, Purificación Fernández Nistal & José María Bravo Gozalo (eds). Valladolid: University of Valladolid Press, 29–50.Google Scholar
Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis & José Luis Tornel Sala. 1996. El predicativo en español: Iconicidad y gramática. Lingüística Española Actual XVIII1: 17–47.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1971. On the acquisition of the meaning of after and before. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 101: 266–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1982. The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Journal of English Linguistics 161: 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1991. Observaciones sobre la predicación secundaria: Mando-c, extracción y reanálisis. In Detrás de la Palabra, Violeta Demonte (ed.). Madrid: Alianza, 157–201.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 431: 449–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 191: 465–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Adverbial subordination. In Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds). London: Continuum, 341–354.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick. 1992. The English Infinitive. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ebeling, Jarle. 1998. Using translations to explore construction meaning in English and Norwegian. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, Method and Case Studies, Stig Johansson & Signe Oksefjell (eds). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 169–195.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1990. Discourse comprehension, text strategies and style. AMULA 731: 166–180.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1990a. Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English. I. Studia Neophilologica 621: 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990b. Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English. II. Studia Neophilologica 621: 129–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Infinitival Complements in Shakespeare’s English. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago de Compostela Press.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1991. Frequenz und kognition – Frequenz und markiertheit. Folia Linguistica 251: 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M. 1995. The distinction between to and bare infinitival complements in Late Middle English. Diachronica 121: 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Verbal complementation in Early Middle English: How do the infinitives fit in? In English Historical Linguistics 1994, Derek Britton (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 247–270.Google Scholar
1999. Changes in infinitival constructions in English. In Anglistentag 1998, Sabine Schulting & Fritz-Wilhelm Neumann (eds). Erfurt Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 7–27.Google Scholar
2000. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Max Nänny. 1999. Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in language use. In Form Miming Meaning (Iconicity in Language and Literature 1), Max Nänny & Olga Fischer (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, xv–xxxvi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2001. The Motivated Sign (Iconicity in Language and Literature 2). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galera Masegosa, Alicia & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. 2012. Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences 341: 54–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Calvo, Agustín. 1974. William Shakespeare/Sonetos de Amor. Barcelona: Anagrama. 1998 edition.Google Scholar
García García, Luciano. 2013. Sonetos y Querellas de una Amante. William Shakespeare. Edición en Inglés, Traducción y Notas. Valencia: JPM Ediciones.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 41: 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Iconicity in Syntax, John Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Approach. Vol. 21. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 151: 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18 (2): 265–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. Volume II1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: First steps towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences 311: 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors. In Studies in Contrastive Construction Grammar, Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49 (6): 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Bringing together fragments and constructions: Evidence from complementation in English and Spanish. In Romance Perspectives on Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 15), Hans C. Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 181–226.Google Scholar
Gramley, Stephan. 1987. The Infinitive Forms of English as Verb Complements. Duisburg: LAUD.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1993. Causative and Perception Verbs (A Comparative Study). Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56 (3): 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59 (4): 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Iconicity. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Ronald E. Asher (ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1629–1633.Google Scholar
. 2006. Iconicity. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. V1. 2nd ed., Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 457–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra L. 2003. The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. In The Study of Language and Translation, Willy Vandeweghe, Sonia Vandepitte & Marc van de Velde (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105–121.Google Scholar
2010. Cognitive translation studies. In Translation and Cognition, Gregory Shreve & Erik Angelone (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 349–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Implications of cognitive linguistics for translation studies. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 33–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Stella Neumann. 2012. Corpus enrichment, representation, exploitation, and quality control. In Cross-linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations: Insights from the Language Pair English-German, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Stella Neumann & Erich Steiner (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 35–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 191: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, María Luisa. 1988. En torno a la sintaxis y semántica de los complementos predicativos en español. Estudi General 81: 7–29.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2010. Comparing comparatives: A corpus-based study of comparative constructions in English and Swedish. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 21–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiraga, Masako K. 1994. Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 221: 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. 2015. The iconicity of infinitival complementation in present-day English causatives. In Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), Costantino Maeder, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 286–306.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 1993. A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb complements: A cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1969. Predicate complement constructions in English (A review article). Lingua 231: 241–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, Francis. 1987. Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 471: 340–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. The role of pragmatic inference in semantics: A study of sensory verb complements in English. Glossa 101: 200–240.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol (The Cognitive Basis of Grammar). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lvóvskaya, Zinaida. 1997. Problemas Actuales de Traducción. Granada: Granada Lingüística & Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
Machacek, Jaroslav. 1965. Complementation of the English Verb by the Accusative-with-Infinitive and the Content Clause. Prague: Státi Pedgagocké Nakaldatelsví.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds). 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCandless, Robert Ian. 1993. La popularidad de un texto isabelino en España: Los sonetos de Shakespeare. Sendebar 41: 225–244.Google Scholar
Maeder, Costantino, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). 2005. Outside-In – Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Micó, José María. 1985. Una traición a Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación 5–61: 53–57.Google Scholar
Mujica Laínez, Manuel. 1983. Sonetos de William Shakespeare. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
. 1985. Recuerdo de Procusto: Traducir a Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación 5–61: 41–43.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang G. & Olga Fischer (eds). 2003. From Sign to Signing (Iconicity in Language and Literature 3). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nänny, Max & Olga Fischer. 2006. Iconicity: Literary texts. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 462–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1987. Manual de Traducción. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Pérez Romero, Carmen. 1987. Monumento de Amor (Los Sonetos de W. Shakespeare Vertidos al Español en Sonetos). Cáceres: University of Extremadura Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Sanciones aduaneras en la frontera anglo-española al traducir los sonetos de Shakespeare. Cuadernos de Traducción e Interpretación 101: 19–37.Google Scholar
Praz, Mario. 1964. Shakespeare-Tutte le Opere. Florence: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth R. 1975. Some pragmatic conditions on complementizer choice. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 111: 467–474.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Espiñeira, María José. 1989. El complemento predicativo del complemento directo en español. PhD dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
. 2002. Percepción directa e indirecta en español. Diferencias semánticas y formales. Verba 271: 33–85.Google Scholar
Rojo, Ana & Javier Valenzuela. 2013. Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 283–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José. 2013. Pedagogical grammar and meaning construction. Plenary lecture given at the 1st International Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy Conference (CALP 2013), Brussels, 8–9 November 2013.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Alicia Galera Masegosa. 2014. Cognitive Modeling: A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutelli, Romana. 1986. Shakespeare: I Sonetti. Milan: Garzanti.Google Scholar
Salvi, Giorgio. 1981. Complementi predicativi. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 101: 313–349.Google Scholar
Serbina, Tatiana. 2015. A Construction Grammar approach to the analysis of translation shifts: A corpus-based study. PhD dissertation, RWTH Aachen University. <[URL]> (Last accessed on 8 June 2018).
Shakespeare, W. 1995. Sonetti. Testo Inglese a Fronte. Milan: BUR. Translation by A. Serpieri. 2015 edition.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of English Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, J. J. 2006. Causatives: Semantics. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier, 265–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spaulding, Robert K. 1933. Infinitive and subjunctive with hacer, mandar, dejar, and the like. Hispania 16 (4): 425–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spears, Arthur K. 1977. The semantics of English complementation. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Szymańska, Izabela. 2011a. Mosaics: A Construction-grammar-based Approach to Translation. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Construction Grammar as a framework for describing translation: A prolegomenon. In New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies (Second Language Learning and Teaching), Mirosław Pawlak & Jakub Bielak (eds). Berlin: Springer, 215–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 1993. Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics of Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2003. Iconicity and literary translation. In From Sign to Signing (Iconicity in Language and Literature 3), Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 361–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Iconicity as a function of point of view. In Outside-In – Inside-Out (Iconicity in Language and Literature 4), Costantino Maeder, Olga Fischer & William J. Herlofsky (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 375–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Iconicity. 2009. Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 5), Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 129–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. (Cognitive) grammar in translation: Form as meaning. In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in some Theoretical Models and Applications, Ana Rojo & Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano (eds). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta, Christina Ljunberg & Olga Fischer (eds). 2007. Insistent Images (Iconicity in Language and Literature 5). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timyam, Napasri & Benjamin K. Bergen. 2010. A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints. In Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 10), Hans C. Boas (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 136–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungaretti, Giuseppe. 1986. Saggi e Interventi. Milan: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, A. 1999. Álvarez: Los Sonetos de Shakespeare son indestructibles. La Verdad (Diario de Murcia), 25th April 1999, p. 72.Google Scholar
Van der Meer, Geart. 1994. Verbs of perception and their complementation. English Studies 51: 468–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2000. Iconicity in English complement constructions: Conceptual distance and cognitive processing levels. In Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, Kaoru Horie (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 199–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Jiyoung & Stephanie Wulff. 2016. A corpus-based study of infinitival and sentential complement constructions in Spanish. In Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 9), Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zandvoort, Reinard Willem & Jan Ate Van Ek. 1962. A Handbook of English Grammar. 6th ed. London: Longman Press.Google Scholar
Zazo, Anna Luisa. 1993. Shakespeare: Sonetti. Milan: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. 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.