Cover not available
Introduction 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. 1–10
Introduction

Into adpositions

New formal perspectives on the structure of the PP and its variation

| University of Oxford
| University of Cambridge | Stellenbosch University | University of the Western Cape
| Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
| Sorbonne Université


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 18 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00039.int
References (44)
References
Acedo Matellán, Víctor. 2010. Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages. Universitat de Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. & Jaume Mateu. 2015. Parameters and argument structure I: Motion predicates and resultatives. In Antonio Fábregas, Jaume Mateu & Michael Putnam, (eds.), Contemporary linguistic parameters, 99–122. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belvin, Robert & Marcel den Dikken. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua 1011. 151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa (ed.). (2008). The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. Particles and the Final-over-Final Condition. In Michelle Sheehan, Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts & Anders Holmberg. The Final-over-Final Condition: A syntactic universal, 187–296. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Probing the nature of the Final-over-Final Condition: The perspective from adpositions. In Laura Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds), Order and structure in syntax, 179–219. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2015. Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification. In James N. Chancharu, Xuhui Hu & Moreno Mitrović (eds), Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 71, 1–31. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Boston: Ginn.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol 6, Mapping spatial PPs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1992. “Bij Marie in de nek”. Interne structuur en extractiegedrag. Gramma/JTT 11. 21–40.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane B. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram. 2014. On the rationality of case. Language Sciences 461. 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inagaki, Shunji. 2002. Motion verbs with locational/directional PPs in English and Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 47(3–4). 187–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klipple, Elizabeth. 1997. Prepositions and variation. In Anna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Projections and interface conditions: Essays on modularity, 74–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1993. The structure of Dutch PPs (ms.). University of Los Angeles.Google Scholar
. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, Silvia. 2011. On the expression of spatial relations in Ardesen-Laz. Linguistic Discovery 9(2). 49–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2019. Lexicalization patterns. In Robert Truswell (ed.), Oxford handbook of event structure, 395–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Leonardo Savoia. 2011. Reducing ‘case’ to denotational primitives: Nominal inflections in Albanian. Linguistic Variation 111. 76–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, Jaume & Gemma Rigau. 2002. A minimalist account of conflation processes: Parametric variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. In Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals, 211–236. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newell, Heather, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott & Lisa Travis. 2017. The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. University of Tromsø PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carme. 2014. Linguistic variation in the Minimalist framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pretorius, Erin. 2017. Spelling out P: A unified syntax of Afrikaans adpositions and V-particles. Utrecht University PhD dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. & Peter Svenonius. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 461. 152–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Puigdollers, Cristina. 2013. Lexicalisation by phase. The role of prepositions in argument structure and its crosslinguistic variation. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 51. 179–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Limits on P: Filling in holes vs falling in holes. Nordlyd 31(2). 431–45.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories. Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. On the syntactic flexibility of formal features. In Theresa Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 143–174. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerling, Anton V. 2000. Обладать и быть рядом. In N. D. Arutjunova and I. B. Levontina Логический анализ языка. Языки пространств, 179–188. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6). 739–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9(2). 169–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar