Article published In:
Into adpositions: New formal perspectives on the structure of the PP and its variation
Edited by Víctor Acedo-Matellán, Theresa Biberauer, Jaume Mateu and Anna Pineda
[Linguistic Variation 21:1] 2021
► pp. 4689
References (79)
Aelbrecht, Lobke & Den Dikken, Marcel
2013Preposition doubling in Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(1). 33–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
2003Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
2014A syntactic Universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 42(5). 169–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa
2016Probing the nature of the final-over-final condition: The perspective from adpositions. In Laura Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Structure and order. Berlin: Language Science Press. 177–216.Google Scholar
2017aFactors 2 and 3: A principled approach. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 101. 38–65.Google Scholar
2017bParticles and the final-over-final condition. In Michelle Sheehan, Theresa Biberuaer, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts (eds). The final-over-final condition. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 187–196.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Folli, Raffaella
2004Goals of Motion in Afrikaans. In O. Courzet, H. Demirdache, & S. Wauquier-Gravelines (eds). Journées d’Etudes Linguistiques. 19–27.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian
2010Subjects, tense and verb-movement. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 263–303.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J.
1994Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1977Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2010What principles and parameters got wrong. Lingbuzz. 1–34. [URL] (25 June 2017).
Borer, Hagit
1984Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2007The superset principle. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL master thesis.Google Scholar
2009The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
2010The parameters of case marking and spellout driven movement. In Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck (ed). Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 32–77.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1996Bare Phrase Structure. In Héctor Campos (ed). Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 51–109.Google Scholar
1970Remarks on nominalizations. In Roderick Jakobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds). Readings in english transformational grammar. Waltham, Ma: Ginn & Company. 184–221.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter
1985Imbabura Quechua. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J.
1978Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Belder, Marijke & Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2013How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 625–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vos, Mark
2013Afrikaans mixed adposition orders as a PF-linearization effect. In Theresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word orders conference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 333–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Eva K.
2011A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel
2010aDirections from the GET-GO: On the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 91. 23–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010bOn the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.). Mapping spatial PPs. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 74–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio
2007aAn exhaustive lexicalisation account of directional complements. Nordlyd 34(2).165–199.Google Scholar
2007bThe exhaustive lexicalization principle. Nordlyd 34(2). 165–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1991Extended projections. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
1995Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, Ma: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1999Distributed morphology. GLOT International: State of the Article 4(4). 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2014On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4): 225–276.Google Scholar
Haselbach, Boris P.
2017Revisiting route prepositions: Paths at the interfaces. Talk given at the Morphosyntactic variation in adpositions workshop (8–9 May). Queen’s College, Cambridge.
Jackendoff, Ray
1977X’-syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jake, Janice L.
1985Grammatical relationships in Imbabura Quechua, New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Keresztes, László
1998Mansi. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.). The Uralic languages. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 387–427.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1973“Elsewhere” in phonology. In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds). A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 93–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2000Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Hilda Koopman (ed.). The syntax of specifiers and heads: Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. London: Routledge. 204–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kracht, Marcus
2002On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(2). 157–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008The fine structure of Spatial Expressions. Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1998The origins of telicity. Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 197–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magomedbekova, Zagidad
1971Ã Ö Ø Ò× ÞÝ Ö Ñ Ø× Ò Ð Þ Ø× ØÝ× ÐÓÚ Ö [The Karata language: grammar analysis, texts, glossary]. Tbilisi: Å Ò Ö [Mecniereba].Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1997No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphology in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 201–225.Google Scholar
2006Morphology lectures: Streaming video. Lectures at the DEC of the ENS, Paris, October. [URL] (25 June 2017).
Seyoum, Mulugeta
2008A grammar of Dime. Leiden: Leiden University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
1994Ingush. In Rieks Smeets (ed). North East Caucasian languages. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Oosthuizen, Johan
2000Prepositions left and right in afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 331.67–91.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos E.
2015Categorical features: A Generative theory of word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina
2010The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics 48(5). 1043–1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. & Caha, Pavel
2011The functional projections of case and path: Grammatical and spatial cases: A unified fseq. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Pretorius, Erin
2015On the status of postpositions in Afrikaans. Talk given at the 4th Southern African microlinguistics workshop (SAMWOP 4) . 27–29 December. Grahamstown, RSA.
2017aSpelling out P: A unified syntax of Afrikaans adpositions and V-particles. Utrecht: Utrecht University doctoral dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017bThe secret nominal life of afrikaans intransitive adpositions. In Alex Andrason & Theresa Biberauer (eds). Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 481. 9–16.Google Scholar
Radkevich, Nina. V.
2010On location: The structure of case and adpositions. Connecticut: UConn PhD thesis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian
2008Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter
2002The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. Proceedings of WCCFL 211. 387–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 461. 152–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojina, Nina
2004English particles, Russian prefixes, and prepositional phrases. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle, Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
2017The final-over-final condition. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal
2009Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1). 1–6.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2003Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd 31(2). 431–445.Google Scholar
2004Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32(2). 205–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007aAdpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In Eric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, & Giorgos Spathas (eds). Argument structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P.
2007bP: Anatomy of a category. LOT Winterschool course in Amsterdam. February.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2012Spanning. Unpublished manuscript. 1–9.Google Scholar
2014Generalized applicatives: Reassessing the lexical-functional divide. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3–4). 439–446.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut T.
2010The nanosyntax of nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120(6). 1522–1548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk
1978A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990Functional prepositions. Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 229–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk & Huybregts, Riny
2002Location and locality. Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. 1–23.Google Scholar
Vellard, Jean A.
1967Contribución al estudio de la lengua Uru. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
2003Representation Theory. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi
2000The structure(s) of particle verbs. Unpublished manuscript. 1–36. Available at: [URL]. DOI logo
Zeller, Jochen
2001Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost
2005Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6).739–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Aspects of a typology of direction. In Stephen Rothstein (ed.). Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010A hierarchy of locations: Evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions. Linguistics 48(5). 983–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Directionele PPs als predikaten (of niet). Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics 19(2). 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar