Part of
The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and implications
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Angela Downing
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247] 2014
► pp. 133148
References
Berry, Margaret
1975 An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics. 1 Structures and Systems . London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1990“Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events.” In Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in Linguistic Categorisation , ed. by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin
1992“Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-headed Grammar of Actions and Events.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics , ed. by Martin Davies, and Louise J. Ravelli, 105–135. London: Printer Publisher.Google Scholar
1998a“Agnates, Verb Classes and the Meaning of Construals. The Case of Ditransitivity in English.” Leuvense Bijdragen 87: 281–313.Google Scholar
1998b“On Transitivity and Ergativity in English, or on the Need for Dialogue between Schools.” In English as a Human Language , ed. by Johan van der Auwera, Frank Duriex, and Ludo Lejeune, 95–108. Lincom: München.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008 The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990–present . Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1984“Notes on Agentivity and Causation. ” Studies in Language 8 (2): 181–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W
2005 A Semantic Approach to English Grammar . 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P
1980 Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction. Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and Other Components of a Communicating Mind . ­Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Guerrero Medina, Pilar
2010“On Ergative Pseudo-effective Structures in English: The ‘Adversative’ Type.” In Para, por y sobre Luis Quereda , ed. by Marta Falces, Encarnación Hidalgo, Juan Santana, and Salvador Valera, 397–407. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K
1967“Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Part 1.” Journal of Linguistics 3: 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994/1985 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar . 3rd ed. London: Hodder education.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993“More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations.” In Causatives and Transitivity , ed. by Bernard Comrie, and Maria Polinsky, 87–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Frequency vs. Iconicity in Explaining Grammatical Asymmetries.” Cognitive Linguistics 19 (1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The Middle Voice . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 2: Descriptive application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Marteen
2006“More on Objectless Transitives and Ergativisation Patterns in English.” Constructions SV1-6/2006 . Available at [URL], urn:nbn:de:009-4-6802. Last accessed on 19 March 2012.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav
1994“A Preliminary Analysis of Causative Verbs in English. ” Lingua 92: 35–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo
2002“Objective and Subjective Datives.” Cognitive Linguistics 13 (1): 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neale, Amy
2002 More Delicate Transitivity: Extending the Process Type System Networks for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications . PhD Thesis. Cardiff: School of ­English, Communication and Philosophy, Cardiff University. Available at [URL]. Last accessed on 19 March 2012.Google Scholar
Nishimura, Yoshiki
1993“Agentivity in Cognitive Grammar.” In Conceptualisations and Mental Processing in Language , ed. by Richard A. Geiger, and Brygida Rudka-Oystyn, 487–530. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1976“Semantic Causative Types.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions , ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 43–116. New York: ­Academic Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems . ­Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taverniers, Miriam
2003“Grammatical Metaphor in SFL. A Historiography of the Introduction and Initial Study of the Concept.” In Grammatical Metaphor. Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics , ed. by Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Miriam Taverniers, and Louise J. Ravelli, 5–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra, and Sarah Lee
2009“A Metonymic Analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English.” In Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar , ed. by Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda ­Thornburg, and Antonio Barcelona, 291–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Romain, Laurence
2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1  pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 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.