Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:3 (2023) ► pp.571598
References

Electronic resources

CCLL = Corpus of the Contemporary Lithuanian Language
LKŽ = Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, the Academic Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language
RNC = Russian National Corpus
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu
2013Satellite-framed Latin vs. verb-framed Romance: A syntactic approach. Probus: International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25(2). 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
1981Zur Geschichte einer indogermanischen Konstruktion (Dativus cum infinitivo im Baltischen). Kalbotyra 32(3). 12–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987Die indogermanische Grundlage des Dativus und Nominativus cum infinitivo im Baltischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 921. 203–219.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2011Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. In Daniel Petit, Claire Le Feuvre & Henri Menantaud (eds.), Langues baltiques, langues slaves, 61–92. Paris: Editions CNRS.Google Scholar
Beavers, John, Beth Levin & Shiao Wei Tham
2010The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46(2). 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Östen Dahl
1989The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1). 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, Jóhanna Barðdal, Willem Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova & Chiaki Taoka
2010Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar, 210–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1981On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-nonbounded) distinction. In Philip Tedeschi & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Tense and aspect (= Syntax and Semantics 14), 79–90. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1989From purposive to infinitive – a universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(1–2). 287–310.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel, Anna Daugavet & Vaiva Žeimantienė
2021Perfective presents in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 121 (thematic issue Studies in the TAME Domain in Baltic and Its Neighbours). 249–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacobini, Claudio, Luisa Corona, Noemi De Pasquale & Alfonsina Buoniconto
2017How should a ‘classical’ satellite-framed language behave? Path encoding asymmetries in Ancient Greek and Latin. In Silvia Luraghi, Tatiana Nikitina & Chiara Zanchi (eds.), Space in diachrony, 95–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1971Implicative verbs. Language 47(2). 340–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kozhanov, Kirill
2016Verbal prefixation and argument structure in Lithuanian. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Argument structure in Baltic, 363–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
1991Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 411. 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019Lexicalization patterns. In Robert Truswell (ed.), The Oxford handbook of event structure, 395–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2003Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: Clarifications and reformulations. In Shuji Chiba & Yoshiko Matsumoto (eds.), Empirical and theoretical investigations into language: A festschrift for Masaru Kajita, 403–418. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
1998Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments. Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Riaubienė, Benita
2015Resultative secondary predicates in the Baltic languages. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Argument realization in Baltic, 403–425. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.
1996Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 195–219. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2006What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Maya Hickman & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 59–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speed, Traci
2015Manner/path typology of Bulgarian motion verbs. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 23(1). 51–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolova, Natalya I.
2008From satellite-framed Latin to verb-framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage. In Roger Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire―latin tardif VIII: Actes du VIIIe Colloque International sur le Latin Vulgaire et Tardif, 253–262. Hildesheim: Georg OlmsGoogle Scholar
Sugiyama, Yukiko
2005Not all verb-framed languages are created equal: The case of Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 311. 299–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1985Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 31: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 171. 480–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000A typology of event integration. Chapter 3 in Leonard Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 21, 213–288. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Lexical typologies. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 31: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. 2nd edn., 66–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2008Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development. Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uchiyama, Kiyoko & Shun Ishizaki
2003A disambiguation method for Japanese compound verbs. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment. Vol. 181, 81–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulvydas, Kazys
ed. 1976Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. III. Sintaksė [Lithuanian grammar III. Syntax]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
Wienold, Götz
1995Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space, with reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as compared to English and German. In Urs Egli, Peter E. Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow & Götz Wienold (eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, 301–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar