Cover not available
Article published In:
Contrasting contrastive approaches
Guest-edited by Bart Defrancq
[Languages in Contrast 15:1] 2015
► pp. 102–124

Expressing the source of dispossession acts in French and Spanish

A contrastive study of voler and robar

Published online: 3 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1.06eng
References (41)
ATILF. Base Textuelle Frantext. [FRANT] Available at [URL] [last accessed 2 December 2014].
Boas, Hans C. (ed.) 2010. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet dans les langues de l’Europe. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, Jack Feuillet (ed.), 193–257. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy and De Clerck, Bernard. 2009. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics 201: 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conti, Carmen. 2008. Receptores y beneficiarios. Estudio tipológico de la ditransitividad. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2010. Against ditransitivity. Probus 221: 151–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1996. Functional dimensions of the dative in English. In The Dative, William van Belle and Willy van Langendonck (eds), 289–338. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delorge, Martine and Colleman, Timothy. 2006. Constructions with verbs of dispossession in Dutch: a corpus-based case study. Studies van de Belgische Kring voor Linguïstiek 11. Available at [URL] [last accessed 2 December 2014].Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1994. La ditransitividad en español: léxico y sintaxis. In Gramática del español, Violeta Demonte (ed.) 431–470. México: El colegio de México.Google Scholar
Dux, Ryan. in press. Frames, Verbs, and Constructions: German Constructions with Verbs of Stealing. In Constructional Approaches to Argument Structure in German. Alexander Ziem and Hans C. Boas (eds). DOI logo
Enghels, Renata and Jansegers, Marlies. 2013. On the cross-linguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: a contrastive study in semantics. Linguistics 51(5): 957–991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Ordoñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Nueva Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), 1317–1398. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1999. El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos. In Nueva Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (eds), 1219–1273. Madrid : Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gómez Seibane, Sara. 2012. Los pronombres átonos (le, la, lo) en el español. In Cuadernos de lengua española 116, Leonardo Gómez Torrego (ed.) Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the Double Object Construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, Pierre Pika and Johan Rooryck (eds), 31–70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Barbara. 2013. La duplicación pronominal del objeto indirecto en español. Un estudio de corpus sobre variables referenciales y sintácticas. Romanische Forschungen 1251, 313–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Theo. 1997. Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description. In The Linguistics of Giving, John Newman (ed.), 267–306. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1984. Actance variations and categories of the object. In Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, Frans Plank (ed.), 262–292. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Le Bellec, Christel. 2014. La construction passive en ‘se faire’ : une forme concurrente et complémentaire du passif canonique. In French Language Studies 24 (2) : 203–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. [Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9]. Available at [URL] [last accessed 2 December 2014].
Margetts, Anna and Austin, Peter. 2007. Three-Participant Events in the Languages of the World: Towards a Crosslinguistic Typology. Linguistics 45 (3): 393–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Three-place predicates: A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences 271: 145–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles: Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radatz, Hans-Ingo. 2011. Leísmo y marcado diferencial de objeto: dos soluciones paralelas acerca del pansincretismo de caso en el español peninsular. In El sincretismo en la gramática del español, Elisabeth Stark and Natascha Pomino (eds), 45–73. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española: Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. [CREA] Available at [URL] [last accessed 2 December 2014].
Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Libros.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, Teresa M. 2005. Manual de sintaxis del español. Madrid: Editorial Castalia.Google Scholar
Roegiest, Eugeen. 1996. Accusatif, ergatif et datif en espagnol moderne. Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2 (1): 79–92.Google Scholar
Tasmowski-De Ryck, Liliane and van Oevelen, Hildegard. 1987. Le causatif pronominal. Revue Romane 22 (I): 40–56.Google Scholar
Tayalati, Fayssal and Van Peteghem, Marleen. 2009. Pour un traitement unitaire de l’assignation du datif en français. Linguisticae Investigationes 321: 99–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorgren, Sara. 2005. Transaction verbs: a lexical and semantic analysis of rob and steal. Reports from the Department of Languages and Culture 31: 1–44. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Van Belle, William and Van Langendonck, Willy. 1996. The indirect object in Dutch. In The Dative, William Van Belle and Willy Van Langendonck (eds), 217–250. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Peteghem, Marleen. 2006. Le datif en français: un cas structural. Journal of French Language Studies 161: 93–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Sur l’assignation du datif dans quatre langues romanes. In Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Maria Iliescu, Heidi M. Siller-Runggaldier and Paul Danler (eds), 1–13. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, V. 1995. El complemento indirecto en español. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wylin, Kim and Enghels, Renata. (in press). Les processus de privation et l’expression de la source en espagnol et en français: une étude contrastive robar vs. voler. Actes du XXVIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Fernández-Martínez, Nicolás José & Pamela Faber
2020. Who stole what from whom?. Languages in Contrast 20:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Frame-Constructional Verb Classes [Constructional Approaches to Language, 28], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 august 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.