Part of
Caused Accompanied Motion: Bringing and taking events in a cross-linguistic perspective
Edited by Anna Margetts, Sonja Riesberg and Birgit Hellwig
[Typological Studies in Language 134] 2022
► pp. 141
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2006) Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K.
(1995) The linguistic construction of space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2/3), 139–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, F. K., & Levinson, S. C.
(2007) Introduction: The typology and semantics of locative predicates: Posturals, positionals, and other beasts. Linguistics, 45(5–6), 847–871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E.
(2008) Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P.
(1969) Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Binnick, R. I.
(1971) Bring and come. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 260–265.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J.
(2015) A practical epistemology for semantic elicitation in the field and elsewhere. In R. Bochnak & L. Matthewson (Eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork (pp. 13–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., & Ameka, F. K.
(2007) Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language, 83(3), 495–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., & Kita, S.
(2011) The macro-event property: The segmentation of causal chains. In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp. 43–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., & Pederson, E.
(2010) Event representation in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., & Narasimhan, B.
(2004) Put project: The crosslinguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual (Vol. 9, pp. 10–24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Pederson, E.
(1992) Topological relations picture series. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992 (p. 51). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J.
(1982) Word order change in Papua New Guinea Austronesian languages (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii). Retrieved from [URL]
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. J.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L.
(1980) The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cleary-Kemp, J.
(2015) Serial verb constructions revisited: A case study from Koro (Doctoral dissertation, University of California). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI 3733339).
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
(2009) ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
(2003) Recipient person suppletion in the verb ‘give’. In M. R. Wise, T. N. Headland, & R. M. Brend (Eds.), Language and life: Essays in memory of Kenneth L. Pike (pp. 265–281). Arlington, TX: SIL International and the University of Texas.Google Scholar
(2005) Some argument-structure properties of ‘give’ in the languages of Europe and Northern and Central Asia. In P. Sihkonen, B. Comrie, & V. Solovyev (Eds.), Argument structure and grammatical relations: A crosslinguistic typology (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowley, T.
(2002) Serial verbs in Oceanic: A descriptive typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vries, L.
(2005) Towards a typology of tail–head linkage in Papuan languages. Studies in Language, 29(2), 363–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(1991) A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Durie, M.
(1988) Verb serialization and “verbal-prepositions” in Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 27(1/2), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Grammatical structures in verb serialization. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex predicates (pp. 289–354). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Gaby, A., Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
(Eds.) (2011) Reciprocals and semantic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
(1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65(2), 203–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1993) Lezgian grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heeschen, V.
(1998) An ethnographic grammar of the Eipo language. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., & Demagny, A.-C.
(2008) How adult English learners of French express caused motion: A comparison with English and French natives. Aile: Acquisition et Interaction En Langue Étrangère, 27, 15–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Harr, A.-K., & Bonnet, P.
(2018) Caused motion across child languages: A comparison of English, German, and French. Journal of Child Language, 45(6), 1247–1274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, D.
(2016) Bride-price, baskets, and the semantic domain of “carrying” in a matrilineal society. Oceanic Linguistics, 55(2), 500–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F.
(1990) Bring, take, come, and go. Journal of English Linguistics, 23(1–2), 239–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovav Rappaport, M., & Levin, B.
(2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
(1970) The semological structure of the English verbs of motion: A stratificational approach. Tokyo: Sanseido Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1987) ‘Source’ and ‘Goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concept of Case (pp. 122–146). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ji, Y., Hendriks, H., & Hickmann, M.
(2011) The expression of caused motion events in Chinese and in English: Some typological issues. Linguistics, 49(5), 1041–1077. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, S.
(2006) The anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics, 44(3), 569–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B.
(Eds.) (2012) Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A., Ishibashi, M., & Vuillermet, M.
(Eds.) (2021) Source-goal asymmetries across languages. Special issue of Studies in Language. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O’Hearn, K., & Landau, B.
(2007) Conceptual foundations of spatial language: Evidence for a goal bias in infants. Language learning and development, 3(3), 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1996) Introduction to part II. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 133–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Cutfield, S., Dunn, M., Enfield, N. J., Meira, S., & Wilkins, D. P.
(Eds.) (2018) Demonstratives in crosslinguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P.
(2006a) Patterns in the data: Towards a semantic typology of spatial description. In S. C. Levinson & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (pp. 512–552). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b) The background to the study of the language of space. In S. C. Levinson & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
(1997) The linguistics of ‘color’. In C. L. Hardin & L. Maffi (Eds.), Color categories in thought and language (pp. 320–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A., & Gaskins, S.
(2001) Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 257–283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, A.
(2007) Three-participant events in Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 46(1), 71–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Learning verbs without boots and straps? The problem of ‘give’ in Saliba. In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability (pp. 111–137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Margetts, A., & Austin, P. K.
(2007) Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics, 45(3), 393–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Margetts, A., Haude, K., Himmelmann, N. P., Jung, D., Riesberg, S., Schnell, S., Seifart, F., Sheppard, H., & Wegener, C.
2022). Cross-linguistic patterns in the lexicalisation of BRING and TAKE. Studies in Language.
Mayer, M.
(1969) Frog, where are you? New York City, NY: Dial Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, U.
(2014) ‘Cut’ and ‘carry’ in Teop. Australian National University. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Eisenbeiß, S., & Brown, P.
(2007) “Two’s company, more is a crowd”: The linguistic encoding of multiple-participant events. Linguistics, 45(3), 383–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Kopecka, A., Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., & Majid, A.
(2012) Putting and taking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlove, S. B., & Romney, A. K.
(1967) Sibling terminology and cross-sex behavior. American Anthropologist, 69(2), 179–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J.
(1996) Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (1997) The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Recipients and ‘give’ constructions. In W. van Langendonck & W. van Belle (Eds.), The dative (Vol. 2, pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A.
(1987) Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 329–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Lane, J.
(1998) From event sequence to grammar: Serial verb constructions in Kalam. In A. Siewierska & J. J. Song (Eds.), Of case, typology and grammar (Vol. 38, pp. 201–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, T., & Zheng, M.
(2007) Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Gawne, L., Hoenigman, D., Miller, J. C., Rumsey, A., Spronck, S., Carroll, A., & Evans, N.
(2012) Getting the story straight: Language fieldwork using a narrative problem-solving task. Language Documentation & Conservation, 6, 135–174.Google Scholar
Saunders, B. A., & Van Brakel, J.
(1997) Are there nontrivial constraints on colour categorization? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(2), 167–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A., & van Lier, E.
(2011) ‘Introduce’ crosslinguistically – Towards a typology of non-prototypical three-participant construction. Talk presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology, 9th Biennial Conference, Hong Kong.
Sinha, C., & Kuteva, T.
(1995) Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18(2), 167–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol. 3, pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17(1), 480–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Unterladstetter, V.
(2020) Multi-verb constructions in Eastern Indonesia. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Van der Leek, F.
(2000) Caused-motion and the ‘bottom-up’ role of grammar. In A. Foolen & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997 (pp. 301–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Staden, M., & Reesink, G. P.
(2008) Serial verb constructions in a linguistic area. In G. Senft (Ed.), Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P., & Hill, D.
(1995) When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 209–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Margetts, Anna, Katharina Haude, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Dagmar Jung, Sonja Riesberg, Stefan Schnell, Frank Seifart, Harriet Sheppard & Claudia Wegener
2022. Cross-linguistic patterns in the lexicalisation of bring and take. Studies in Language 46:4  pp. 934 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 may 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.