Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:4 (2021) ► pp.753–790

Prolegomena to a theory of chorophorics

ORCID logo | Central China Normal University
The goal of this paper is to offer a theoretical analysis of chorophorics, a recently proposed pro-formal category that can refer either to “places”, or to locations as arguments of spatial relations. It is suggested that chorophorics are a common category that displays heterogeneous morphological properties but homogeneous syntactic distribution and semantic interpretation. Evidence supporting this argument is offered via eight genetically unrelated languages. The evidence shows that at least three different types of chorophorics can be individuated across languages: chorophorics as a sub-type of prepositions, of case-marked nouns or of postpositions. A formal account is offered, based on a Lexical Syntax analysis. The account shows that chorophorics share a similar distribution with prepositional phrases and receive their “place” sense from their distribution in discourse contexts.
Keywords: spatial adpositions, spatial nouns, chorophorics, lexical typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
  • 3.Background assumptions and methodology
  • 4.The data
    • 4.1Prepositional languages: Aquilan and Hebrew
    • 4.2Case languages: Korean, Arrernte, Estonian and Tsez
    • 4.3Postpositional languages: Mandarin and Fongbè
    • 4.4Interim discussion
  • 5.The Analysis
    • 5.1The analysis: Syntactic and morphological structures
    • 5.2Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 3 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19072.urs
References (131)
References
Adger, David. 2010. A minimalist theory of feature structures. In Anna Kibort & Greville Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 185–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alekseev, Mikhail E. & Ramazan N. Rajabov. 1991. Tsez Language. In Michael Job (ed.), Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 31, 70–101. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
. 1993. Prerequisites to the formation of Tsez writing system. In George Hewitt (ed.), Caucasian perspectives, 372–376. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Amelka, Felix & Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. Introduction – The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals and other beasts. Linguistics 451. 847–872.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 2007. The grammar of names. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna. 2008. The morphosyntax of case and adpositions. Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. & Paul Sablayrolles. 1995. A typology and discourse semantics for motion verbs and spatial PPs in French. Journal of Semantics 121. 163–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aurnague, Michel. 1998. Basque genitives and part-whole relations: typical configurations and dependences. Carnets de Grammaire Rapports Internes de l’ERSS 11. 1–62.Google Scholar
Avolio, Francesco. 1992. Il problema dei questionari e la metodologia d’inchiesta nei primi rilevamenti per il vocabolario dei dialetti della Sabina e dell’Aquilano (VDSA). ALIR 11. 557–575.Google Scholar
. 1993. Problemi di interlinguisticità dialettale. Contatti e reazioni linguistiche sul ‘confine’ mediano-meridionale: modellizazione sabina e ‘abruzzesità’ vestina con particolare riguardo al sinecismo aquilano. Sassari: Università di Sassari PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2009. Tra Abruzzo e Sabina. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Bandecchi, Valeria. 2013. Lexicalization of the Manner Component: Evidence from Italian. Dublin: University College Dublin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Jim P. 2005. Word-based declensions in Estonian. In Gert Booij, & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 1–25. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Boone, Enrico. 2014. The syntax and licensing of gapping and fragments. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Botwinik, Irena & Arhonto Terzi. 2006. Greek and Hebrew locative prepositional phrases: A unified case-driven account. Lingua 1181. 399–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botwinik, Irena. 2008. Why are they different? An exploration of Hebrew locative PPs. In Anna Asbury, Berit Gehrke, Jakub Dotlačil, & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 331–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. A closer look at the Hebrew Construct and Free locative PPs: the analysis of mi-locatives. In Dennis Kurzon & Silvia Adler (eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives, 85–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2004. The category P: Features, projections, interpretation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Eric Pederson. 1992. Cross-linguistic studies of spatial semantic organization. In Penelope Brown, Gunter Senft & Linda Wheeldon (eds.), Annual report of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 53–56. Nimejgen: Max Planck Institute Press.Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan & Rob Pensalfini. 1999. Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry 301. 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurie J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Abingdon-on-Thames: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Trømso: Trømso University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Canac-Marquis, Marie. 1986. Sur le statut categorique et syntactique de P en Fon. In Claire Lefevbre & Jonathan Kaye (eds.), Études syntactiques, morphologiques et phonologiques. Research prepared for SSHRCC, FCAR and PAFAC on the project Recherche de Haiti-Fon, 41–53. Montréal: Université du Quebec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Chang, Suk-Jin. 1996. Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & Alain Peyraube. 2008. Chinese localizers: Diachrony and some typological considerations. In Dan Xu (ed.), Space in languages of China, 15–37. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi-Jonin, Injoo. 2008. Particles and postpositions in Korean. In Dennis Kurzon & Silvia Adler (eds.), Adpositions: Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 74), 133–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. (eds.). 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coffin, Edna A. & Shmuel Bolozky (eds.). 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. & M. Polinsky. 1998. The great Daghestanian case hoax. In Anna Siewierska & Jung Jae Song (eds.), Case, typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake. 95–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1988. General features of the Uralic languages. In Sinor Denis (ed.), The Uralic languages, 451–477. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Creary, Lewis, Jean Mark Gawron & John Nerbonne. 1987. Towards a theory of locative reference. In Jonathan Hirschberg (ed.), Proceedings of the ASL 1987, 34–40. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Maxwell J. 1978. Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(1). 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Quantitative methods in typology. In Gabriel Altmann, Reinhard Köhler & Ron Piotrowski (eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook, 559–577. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, & Diana Forker. 2009. Reconstruction of morphosyntactic function: Non-spatial use of spatial case marking in Tsezic. Language 851. 588–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 2011. Definiteness agreement with PP modifiers. In Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon & Susan Rothstein (eds.), Generative approaches to Hebrew linguistics, 70–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2005. Adpositions as a non-universal category. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David Rood (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Djamouri, Redouane, Paul Waltraud & John Whitman. 2013. Postpositions vs. prepositions in Mandarin Chinese: The articulation of disharmony. In Theresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word order, 69–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013. Order of Adposition and Noun Phrase. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: [URL], last access 12 July 2020.
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 221, 1–25.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas, Asifa Majid & Miriam van Staden. 2006. Cross-linguistic categorization of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences 281. 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erelt, Mati (ed.). 2003. Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1988. Chinese postpositions? – Again. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 161. 219–245.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In Vyvyan Evans & Stefanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 50–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2012. Semantic typology. In J. J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 504–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio. 2012. A guide to IL and SL in Spanish: Properties, problems and proposals. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 11. 3–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis. 2018. The semantic map Model State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(9). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giammarco, Ernesto. 1973. Abruzzo dialettale. Pescara: Istituto di Studi Abruzzesi.Google Scholar
Glinert, Lewis. 1991. Modern Hebrew: An essential grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimes, Barbara F. (ed.). 1996. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 13th edn. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Habicht, Külli. 2001. On the genesis and loss of the adposition rinnas (‘abreast, beside’) in Literary Estonian. In Ilona Tragel (ed.), Papers in Estonian cognitive linguistics, 71–89. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Chorophorics, or the difference between place as an entity and place as a position in space. In Tim Thornes (ed.), Functional-historical approaches to explanation: In honour of Scott DeLancey, 27–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2013. Head directionality – in syntax and morphology. In Antonio Fábregas, Jaume Mateu & Michael Putnam (eds.), The handbook of parameters, 68–83. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harkins, Jean & Dan P. Wilkins. 1994. Mparntwe Arrernte and the search for lexical universals. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 285–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. Adpositions. In William Frawley (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, 2nd edn, 407–430. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction (Studies in the Evolution of Language 9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 411. 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jürine, Anni. 2015. The development of complex postpositions in Estonian: A case of grammaticalization via lexicalization. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kang, Yungkyoung. 2012. A cognitive linguistics approach to the semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Washington, D.C.: Washington Georgetown University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej. 2013. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevkaja-Tamm, Maria. 2008. Approaching lexical typology. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, 3–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2012. New directions in lexical typology. Linguistic Typology 121, 373–394.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefevbre, Claire & Anne-Marie Brusseau. 2002. A grammar of Fongbè. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lefevbre, Claire. 1989. Complex prepositional phrases: another case of serialisation. In Claire Lefevbre (ed.) Études syntactiques, morphologiques et phonologiques. Research prepared for SSHRCC, FCAR and PAFAC on the project Recherche de Haiti-Fon, 278–293. Montréal: Université du Quebec à Montréal.Google Scholar
. 1990. Establishing a category P in Fon. The Journal of Western African Languages 211. 21–35.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2012. Converse Categorization Strategies. In Maria Koptjevkaja–Tamm & Martine Vanhove (eds.), New directions in lexical typology. Special issue of Linguistics 50(3). 467–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The space of case. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen & Sergio Meira. 2003. Natural concepts in the Spatial Topological Domain – Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 791. 485–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Dan P. Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1994. Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 321. 791–856. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity, vol. 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles & Sandra Thompson. 1982. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Libert, Alan R. 2013. Adpositions and other parts of speech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Liu, Feng-Hsi. 1998. A clitic analysis of locative particles. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 261. 48–70.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Andrew Spencer (ed.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume, & Laia Amadas. 2001. Syntactic tools for semantic construal. Paper presented at 1st Conference on Tools in Linguistic Theory. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS , Utrecht, 6–8 July 2001. Available at [URL], last access 12 July 2020.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 271. 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, Senghuo. 1995. The semantics of locative prepositional phrases in English. Los Angeles: UCLA PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Seongha Rhee. 2001. Grammaticalization of space in Korean and Japanese. In Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Shared grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages, 170–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2015. Tsez syntax: A description. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, Elena & Reznikova, Teresa. 2016. A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In Pauli Juvonen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The lexical typology of semantic shifts, 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2004. A comparative analysis of grammaticalization of English and Korean adpositions. Studies in Modern Grammar 401. 209–233.Google Scholar
Rygaloff, Alexis. 1973. Grammaire elementaire du chinois. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Hans C. Boas & Paul Kay. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–189. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Siloni, Tal. 2002. Construct states at the PF-interface. In Pierre Pica & Johann Rooryck (eds.), The yearbook of language variations 11, 229–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2005. The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2007. Lexical typology, lexical contact and creolization. In Wiltrud Mihatsch & Monika Sokol (eds.), Language contact and language change in the Caribbean and beyond, 19–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych & Aina Urdze. 2017. When zero is just enough …In support of a special toponymic grammar in Maltese. Folia Linguistica 511. 453–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Christel Stolz. 2014. The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd 331. 49–77.Google Scholar
. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 61, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svorou, Soteris. 1994. The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: the MIT press.Google Scholar
Tauli, Valter. 1973. Standard Estonian grammar. Phonology, morphology, word formation, vol. 11. (Studia Uralica et Altaica Upsaliensia 8). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job, & Peter R. Lutzeier (eds.), Lexikologie / Lexicology, vol. 21, 1702–1712. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tseng, Jesse. 2000. The representation and selection of prepositions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Haiping Long. 2018a. Spatial categories in Aquilan. Dialectologia.& Geolinguistica 261. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. On spatial nouns and adpositions in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics (특집호) 811. 193–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Chorophorics in the Aquilan dialect. Studia Linguistica 74 (2) 471–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Zee, Emile. 2000. Why we talk about bulging barrels and spinning spirals: Curvature representation and lexical interface. In Emile van der Zee & Urpo Nikanne (eds.), Cognitive interfaces, 70–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 2010. Genesis of spatial terms. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions, 171–192. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Veismann, Ann. 2009. Eesti kaas– ja määrsõnade semantika võimalusi [Semantics of Estonian adpositions and adverbs] (Dissertationes Linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 11). Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk & Joost Zwarts. 1992. Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: The motion of path. Linguistics 301. 483–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vignuzzi, Ugo. 1997. Lazio, Umbria and the Marche. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 311–321. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1999. The evolution of c-structure: Prepositions and PPs from Indo–European to Romance. Linguistics 371. 1111–1153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2012. Specificity. In Claudia Maierborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1025–1058. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Dan P. 2000. Towards an Arrernte grammar of space. In Stephen C. Levinson & Dan P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space, 24–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1995. More than just wishful thinking: The survival of Arrernte worldview is historical fact, not romantic fiction. Oceania Newsletter 151. 8–12.Google Scholar
1997. The verbalization of motion events in Arrernte (Central Australia). In Eve Clark (ed.), Proceedings of the 28th annual child language research forum, 295–308. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 291. 591–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina. 2017. Adpositions. In Rint Sybesma, Wolfgang Behr, Yueguo Gu, Zev Handel, James Huang & James Myers (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Chinese language and linguistics, 60–90. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 1997. Vectors as relative positions. Journal of Semantics 141. 57–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Aspects of a typology of direction. In Susan Rothstein (eds.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects, 79–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. A hierarchy of locations: Evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions and cases. Linguistics 481. 983–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Forceful prepositions. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, 193–214. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost, & Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 91. 169–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar