Part of
Perspectives on Semantic Roles
Edited by Silvia Luraghi and Heiko Narrog
[Typological Studies in Language 106] 2014
► pp. 151180
References (26)
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristar, Anthony R. 1997. Marking and hierarchy types and the grammaticalization of case markers. Studies in Language 21(2): 313–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds), 173–191. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In Markedness, Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica R. Wirth (eds), 85–106. New York NY: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2008. Spatial cases. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 609–625. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis & Mounole, Céline. 2011. Animacy and spatial cases: Typological tendencies, and the case of Basque. In Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99], Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds), 157–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gair, James W. & Paolillo, John C. 1997. Sinhala. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas & Ojutkangas, Krista. 2006. An introduction to Finnish spatial relations: Local cases and adpositions. In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds), 11–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Mikä erottaa muodot sisällä ja sisässä? “Synonyymisten” muotojen analyysi (What is the difference between sisällä ‘in’ and sisässä ‘in’? An analysis of two “synonymous” forms). Sananjalka 52: 19–45.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. On distinguishing between recipient and beneficiary in Finnish. In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 277], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds), 129–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12: 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Beneficiary coding in Finnish. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies [Typological Studies in Language 92], Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds), 245–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo & Ylikoski, Jussi. 2011. Remarks on the coding of goal, recipient and vicinal goal in European Uralic. In Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 99], Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds), 29–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klavan, Jane, Kaisa Kesküla & Laura Ojava. 2011. The division of labour between synonymous locative cases and adpositions: The Estonian adessive and the adposition peal ‘on’. In Case, Animacy and Semantic roles, Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi and Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), 1134–134. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lauerma, Petri. 1990. Spatiaalinen kenttä (spatial tier). In Suomen kielen paikallissijat konseptuaalisessa semantiikassa (Finnish local cases in conceptual semantics), Pentti Leino, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Petri Lauerma, Urpo Nikanne & Tiina Onikki (eds), 108–145. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The coding of spatial relations with human landmarks: From Latin to Romance. In Case, Animacy and Semantic roles [Typological Studies in Language 99], Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds), 209–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2003. What markedness marks: The markedness problem with direct objects. Lingua 114: 1186–1212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ojutkangas, Krista. 2008. Mihin suomessa tarvitaan sisä-grammeja (What for does Finnish need sisä- ‘inside’ grams). Virittäjä 112(3): 382–400.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11: 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje. 2011. Ergativity and Aligment in Indo-Aryan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ghent.
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Koenig, Ekkehard
2024. The historical development of asymmetries. Studies in Language DOI logo
Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Tong Wu
2024. On Italian spatial prepositions and measure phrases: reconciling the data with theoretical accounts. Linguistics 62:2  pp. 491 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia
TOYOTA, JUNICHI
2017. <i>Perspectives on Semantic Roles</i>. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 33:2  pp. 567 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 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.