Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 34:4 (2010) ► pp.943951
Arkhipov, Alexandre
2009Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid category. New challenges in typology. Transcending borders and refining the Distinctions, Patience Epps, & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), 223–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin
2005The functional domain of concomitance. A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. Typological studies in participation (Studia Typologica 71), Christian Lehmann (ed.) 9–104. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob
1974The principle of concomitance: instrumental, comitative and collective (with special reference to German). Foundations of Language 12/2: 215–247.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob and Waldfried Premper
(eds.) 1991Partizipation. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten. Tübingen: Günther Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
1997Some instruments are really good companions  – some are not. On syncretism and the typology of instrumentals and comitatives. Theoretical Linguistics 23 (1/2): 113–200.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Uhlik, M. & A. Žele
2019. Slovenian comitative constructions with dual personal pronouns. Rhema :3, 2019  pp. 115 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 june 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.