Go to the content. | Move to the navigation | Go to the site search | Go to the menu | Contacts | Accessibility

| Create Account

Cavallo, Guido (2014) The Latin psych verbs of the \={e}-class: (de)transitivization and syntactic alignement. [Ph.D. thesis]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Preview
PDF Document
2050Kb

Abstract (english)

This thesis investigates the syntax of the Latin psych verbs of the ē-class. The main aim of the work is to provide a formal analysis of their possible syntactic configurations in the Generative Grammar framework. The psych verbs of the ē-class are mostly stative in nature and are attested in different patterns: an impersonal pattern (the piget-type), a Subject Experiencer pattern (the doleo-type), and an Object Experiencer pattern (the placeo and the urgeo-type). While the urgeo-type (in which the Experiencer is assigned the Accusative) does not show remarkable syntactic peculiarities if compared to regular transitive verbs, the other types share common characteristics. The basic configuration of these verbs is that of the piget-type, in which both arguments are VP-internal, as none of them receives the Nominative. From this basic structure different patterns can be derived, by promoting the Experiencer or the Stimulus to the subject position. The most ancient type is a transimpersonal configuration, which is progressively de-transitivized in time: the internal Experiencer is re-analysed as a quirky subject and, in a successive stage, the predicate is re-transitivized and its structure is finally aligned with the prototypical accusative pattern. This gives rise to
an ExpNom/StimAcc configuration. When this process takes place an internal argument is assigned the Inherent Accusative, i.e. a “transitional” Case which does not display the properties of the Structural Accusative: the DP which receives it cannot be passivized and cannot easily undergo ē-
movement. This process of (de)transitivization affects all the verbs described in this work, which outlines a detailed formal analysis of their syntax under a diachronic perspective.

Abstract (italian)

Il lavoro analizza la sintassi dei verbi psicologici del latino appartenenti alla classe in -ē-. Il suo scopo principale è quello di fornire una rappresentazione formale adeguata per tale classe di verbi nel quadro della Grammatica Generativa. I verbi psicologici della classe in -ē- sono per lo più di natura stativa e sono attestati in diverse configurazioni: il tipo impersonale (quello di piget), il tipo a Soggetto Esperiente (quello di doleo) ed il tipo ad Oggetto Esperiente (quello di placeo e di urgeo). Mentre il tipo di urgeo (in cui l’Esperiente riceve il Caso Accusativo) non mostra peculiarità sintattiche di rilievo se comparato coi verbi regolarmente transitivi, gli altri tipi sono accomunati da caratteristiche sintattiche simili: essi sono verbi che selezionano due argomenti interni, generati in sintassi con una ricca quantità di tratti tematici. La zonfigurazione di base dei verbi stativi di questa classe è quella del tipo impersonale, in cui il Nominativo non viene assegnato a nessuno dei due argomenti. A partire da tale configurazione, diverse strutture possono essere derivate promuovendo alla posizione di soggetto l’Esperiente o lo Stimolo. Il tipo più antico è una struttura transimpersonale, che è progressivamente detransitivizzata, poiché l’Esperiente è rianalizzato come quirky subject; in una seconda fase, una volta che il verbo è stato allineato ad una struttura con Soggetto Esperiente, si assiste ad un nuovo processo di transitivizzazione che porta all’allineamento col pattern prototipico delle lingue accusative e dà così luogo ad una configurazione in cui l’Esperiente animato riceve il Nominativo e lo Stimolo riceve l’Accusativo. Durante il processo appena descritto, un argomento interno riceve l’Accusativo Inerente, ossia un Caso di transizione che non ha le stesse proprietà dell’Accusativo Strutturale, in quanto il DP che lo riceve non può essere passivizzato e non può essere sottoposto a movimento di tipo ē. Il processo di transitivizzazione appena descritto coinvolge tutti i verbi presi in considerazione in questo lavoro, che propone per essi un’analisi formale adottando una prospettiva diacronica.

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
EPrint type:Ph.D. thesis
Tutor:Bertocci, Davide
Ph.D. course:Ciclo 26 > Scuole 26 > SCIENZE LINGUISTICHE, FILOLOGICHE E LETTERARIE > LINGUISTICA, LINGUE CLASSICHE E MODERNE
Data di deposito della tesi:26 February 2014
Anno di Pubblicazione:26 February 2014
Key Words:Psych verbs, verbi psicologici, Latin syntax, sintassi latina, VP layer, struttura del VP, thematic roles, ruoli tematici
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 10 - Scienze dell'antichità, filologico-letterarie e storico-artistiche > L-LIN/01 Glottologia e linguistica
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Letterari
Codice ID:6880
Depositato il:28 Feb 2014 09:41
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

REFERENCES Cerca con Google

Allen, C. L. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Allen, R. L. (1966). The Verb System of Present-Day English. The Hague: Mouton. Cerca con Google

Anagnostopoulou, E. (1999). “On Experiencers”. In: A. Alexiadou and G. C. Artemis, Horrocks and M. Stavrou (eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 67-93. Cerca con Google

Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Andrews, A. D. (1982). “The representation of case in Modern Icelandic”. In: J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 427-503. Cerca con Google

Andrews, A. D. (2001). "Non-Canonical A/S Marking in Icelandic". In: A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon and M. Onishi, (eds.), Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Arad, M. (1998). “Psych-notes” UCL Working papers in linguistics 10: 203-222. Cerca con Google

Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, T. (1997). Optimality Theory. An Overview. Oxford: Blackwell. Cerca con Google

Arkadiev, P. M. (2008). “Thematic roles, event structure, and argument encoding in semantically aligned languages”. In: M. Donohue and S. Wichmann (eds.), Typology of languages with semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press 200, pp.101-117. Cerca con Google

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cerca con Google

Asher, N. (2000). “Events, Facts, Propositions, and Evolutive Anaphora”. In: J. Higginbotham and F. Pianesi and A. Varzi (eds.), Speaking of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123-150. Cerca con Google

Asudeh, A. (2012). The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Babby, L. H. (2010). “The syntax of argument structure”. In: M. Duguine and S. Huidobro and N. Madariaga (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 133-150. Cerca con Google

Bach, E. (1986). “The Algebra of Events” Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5-16. Cerca con Google

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Cerca con Google

Baker, M. (1997). “Thematic roles and syntactic structure”. In: L. Haegeman (ed.), Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73-137. Cerca con Google

Barbiers, S. (2008). “Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. An Introduction”. In: S. Barbiers and O. Koeneman and M. Lekakou and M. van der Ham (eds.), Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Bingley: Emerald, pp 1-31. Cerca con Google

Barðal, J. (1993). “Accusative and dative case of objects of some transitive verbs in Icelandic and the semantic distinction between them”. In: A. Flyktförsök (ed.), Festschrift for Christer Platzack. Lund University: Department of Scandinavian Languages, pp. 1–13. Cerca con Google

Barðal, J. (1999). “The Dual Nature of Icelandic Psych-Verbs” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 64: 79-101. Cerca con Google

Barðal, J. and Eythórsson, T. (2009). “The origin of the oblique-subject construction: An Indo- European comparison”. In: V. Bubenik and J. Hewson and S. Rose (eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–193. Cerca con Google

Bauer, B. L. M. (2000). Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Bavin E. L. (2013). “The acquisition of ergative case”. In: E. L. Bavin and S. Stoll Warlpiri (eds.), The acquisition of Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107-132. Cerca con Google

Beames, J. (1872–79). A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Cerca con Google

Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988). “Psych-verbs and theta theory” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352. Cerca con Google

Benincà, P. (1986). “Il lato sinistro della frase Italiana” Association of Teachers of Italian Journal 47: 57-85. Cerca con Google

Bennet, C. E. (1966). Syntax of Early Latin. Hildesheim: Olms. Cerca con Google

Bennis, H. (2004). “Unergative Adjectives and Psych Verbs”. In: A. Alexiadou and M. Everaert (eds.), Studies in Unaccusativity: The Syntax-Lexicon Interface. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 84-113. Cerca con Google

Benveniste, E. (1950). “Actif et moyen dans le verbe” Journal de Psychologie Janvier-Février: 168-175. Cerca con Google

Benveniste, E. (1960) “"Etre" et "avoir" dans leurs fonctions linguistiques” Bullettin de la Societé de Linguistique LV: 113-134. Cerca con Google

Bertinetto, P. M. (2001) “On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: The ‘Perfective = > Telic Confusion’”. In: C. Cecchetto and G. Chierchia and M. T. Guasti (eds.), Semantic Interfaces [Reference, Anaphora and Aspect]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 177-210. Cerca con Google

Bertocci, D. (2011a). “Note sulle formazioni latine in idus”. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese, vol. IV: 188-195. Cerca con Google

Bertocci, D. (2013). “Survivings of the *-eH1- stative morphology in Umbrian and Latin”. In: R. Sukac and O. Sefcik (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European 2 (Paper on Indo-European Phonetics, Phonemics and Morphophonemics. München: LINCOM GmbH, pp. 14-28. Cerca con Google

Bertocci, D. and Cavallo, G. (2013) La morfosintassi di doceo: un’ipotesi sulla ditransitività. Ms. 17th Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. University of Tor Vergata, Rome 20th – 25th may 2013. Cerca con Google

Bertollo, S. and Cavallo, G. (2013). Possibili interazioni tra aspetto e ruolo tematico nella costruzione a doppio oggetto del napoletano. Ms. Giornata di Studi sui dialetti della Campania, Padua 15th October 2013. Cerca con Google

Blake, B. J. (1994). Case. Cambridge: CUP. Cerca con Google

Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Borer, H. and Grodzinsky, Y. (1986) “Syntactic Cliticization and Lexical Cliticization: the case of Hebrew dative clitics”. In: H. Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Syntax and Semantics 19. New York: cademic Press, pp. 175–215. Cerca con Google

Bošković, Z. (2002). “A-movement and the EPP” Syntax 5: 167-218. Cerca con Google

Bouchard, D. (1992). “Psych Constructions and Linking to Conceptual Structures”. In: P. Hirschbühler and K. Koerner (eds.), Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25-44. Cerca con Google

Bouchard, D. (1995). The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cerca con Google

Bowers, J. (1993). “The syntax of predication” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656. Cerca con Google

Bowers, J. (2010). “Argument structure and quantifier scope”. In: M. Duguine and S. Huidobro and N. Madariaga (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 151-181. Cerca con Google

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Cerca con Google

Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. Cerca con Google

Butt, M. (2006) “Empirical Issues”. In: O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 6, pp. 69–92. Cerca con Google

Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. PhD Thesis, University of Tromsø. Cerca con Google

Cardinaletti A. (2004). “Toward a cartography of subject positions”. In: L. Rizzi (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 115-165. Cerca con Google

Cardinaletti, A. and Guasti, T. (1995). Small Clauses. Chicago: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

Carlson, L. (1981). “Aspect and Quantification” Syntax and Semantics 14: 31-64. Cerca con Google

Cavallo, G. (2012). Sintassi dei verba affectuum e transitivizzazione nel latino tardo. Ms. LATIN VULGAIRE – LATIN TARDIF 10th International Conference, Bergamo, Italy, September 4th – 9th 2012. Cerca con Google

Cavallo, G. (2013a). “Accusativo e Accusativi in latino: analisi sintattica e prospettive didattiche”. In: Atti della I Giornata di Linguistica e Didattica. Padua 13th -14th december 2012. Cerca con Google

Cavallo, G. (2013b). I fattori della transitività in latino: Accusativo Inerente e soggetti derivati. Ms. 17th Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. University of Tor Vergata, Rome 20th – 25th may 2013. Cerca con Google

Cavallo, G. and Bertollo, S. (to appear). “Some issues about wh- resumption in Late Latin” Wiener Linguistische Gazette. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft Universität Wien. Cerca con Google

Cecchetto, C. and Oniga, R. (2002). “Consequences of the Analysis of Latin Infinitival Clauses for the Theory of Case and Control“ Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 151-189. Cerca con Google

Cennamo, M. (2009). “Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin”. In: J. Barðdal and S. Chelliah (eds.), The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 307-346. Cerca con Google

Cennamo, M. (2010). Control and argument marking in Latin. Ms. Subject and Transitivity in Indo-European and Beyond. Vilnius, Lithuania 2nd – 5th September 2010. Cerca con Google

Cennamo, M. (2012). Oblique 'subjects' and aspectual classes in Latin. Ms. Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects within and across Languages and Language Families. Iceland 4th - 8th June 2012. Cerca con Google

Cennamo, M. (forthcoming). “Accusative subjects and argument marking in Late Latin”. In: C. Lehmann & S. Skopeteas (eds.), Evolution of yntactic Relations. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Chantraine, P. (1927). Histoire du parfait grec. Paris: Champion. Cerca con Google

Chantraine, P. (1953). Grammaire homérique. Tome II, Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by phase. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (2001). “Derivation by phase“ In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1-50. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (2008). “On phases”. In: R. Freidin and C. Otero and M. L. Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 133–166. Cerca con Google

Chomsky, N. (2013). “Problems of projection” Lingua 130: 33-49. Cerca con Google

Cinque, G. (2006). “Complement and Adverbial PPs: Implications for Clause Structure”. In: G. Cinque (ed.), Restructuring and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 146-166. Cerca con Google

Comrie, B. (1979). “Definite and animate objects: a natural class” Linguistica Silesiana 3: 13-21. Cerca con Google

Conte, G. and Berti, E. and Mariotti, M. (2006). La Sintassi del Latino. Firenze: Le Monnier. Cerca con Google

Coon, J. (2013). Aspects of Split Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Cowgill, W. (1963). “Review of Puhvel, Laryngeals and the Indo-European Verb” Language 39: 248-270. Cerca con Google

Creissels, D. (2008). “Remarks on split intransitivity and fluid intransitivity. Empirical Issues” In: O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 7, pp. 139–168. Cerca con Google

Cresti, D. (1990). “A Unified View of Psych-Verbs in Italian”. In: K. Dziwirek and P. Farrel and E. Mejias-Bikando (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 59-81. Cerca con Google

Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Cerca con Google

Croft, W. (1998). “Event Structure in Argument Linking”. In: M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 21-96. Cerca con Google

Croft. W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press Cerca con Google

Croft, W. and Taoka, C. and Wood, E. J. (2001). “Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian and Japanese” Language Sciences 23: 579-602. Cerca con Google

Cruse, D. A. (1973). “Some thoughts on agentivity” Journal of Linguistics 9: 11-23. Cerca con Google

Cuzzolin, P. and Napoli, M. (2008). “An overview of impersonal verbs in Indo-European”. In: Protolanguage and Prehistory. Proceedings of the Twelfth Congress of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft in Krakow. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 75–81. Cerca con Google

Dahl, E. and Fedriani, C. (2012). “The Argument Structure of Experience: Experiential Constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek and Early Latin”. In: J. Barðdal and M. Cennamo and E. Van Gelderen (eds.), Argument Realization and Change. The Transactions of the Philological Society 110 (3): 342-362. Cerca con Google

Damonte, F. (2004). The Thematic Field: The Syntax of Argument Structure Enhancing Morphology. PhD Thesis, University of Padua. Cerca con Google

Davidson, D. (1967). “The Logical Form of Action Sentences”. In N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press, pp. 81-95. Cerca con Google

Delbrück, B. (1888). Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Cerca con Google

Demonte, V. (1995). “Dative alternation in Spanish” Probus 7, 1: 5-30. Cerca con Google

De Vaan, M. A. C. (2008). Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden: Brill. Cerca con Google

Di Gennaro, R. (2008). “Gli aggettivi latini in –idus Studi e saggi linguistici: 117-166. Cerca con Google

Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). “Ergativity” Language 55: 59-138. Cerca con Google

Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Cerca con Google

Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cerca con Google

Dowty, D. R. (1989). “On the Semantic Content of the Notion of ‘Thematic Role’”. In: G. Chierchia and B. H. Partee and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning. Dordrecht: KLWER, pp. 69-130. Cerca con Google

Dowty, D. R. (1991). “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection” Language 67: 547-619. Cerca con Google

Edmonds, J. (1985). A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Cerca con Google

Ernout, A. (1953). Morphologie historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. (1959). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Ernout, A. and Thomas, F. (1953). Syntaxe Latine (2nd ed.). Paris: Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Fedriani, C. (2013). “The me pudet construction in the history Latin: Why and how fast non-canonical subjects come and go”. In: I. Serzants and L. Kulikov (eds.), The Diachronic Typology of Non-Canonical Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205-232. Cerca con Google

Fodor, J. A. (1970) “Three reasons for not deriving 'kill' from 'cause to die'” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429-438. Cerca con Google

Fillmore, C. J. (1968). “The Case for Case”. In: E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, pp. 1-90. Cerca con Google

Fillmore, C. J. and Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Course-book Chapters 1 thru 11 (Reading Materials for Ling X20). Berkeley: University of California. Cerca con Google

Folli, R. and Harley, H. (2005). “Consuming results in Italian & English: flavours of v.” In: P. Kempchinsky and R. Slabakova (eds.). Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 95-120. Cerca con Google

Folli, R. and Harley, H. (2007). “Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 2: 197-238. Cerca con Google

Flobert, P. (1975). Les Verbes Déponents Latins des Origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Cerca con Google

Franco, J. (1990). “Towards a Typology of Psych Verbs: Evidence from Spanish”. In: T. Green and U. Sigal (eds.), Proceedings of 2nd Meeting of SCIL, MITWPL 12. MIT, pp. 46-62. Cerca con Google

García-Ramón, J.L. (1993). “Lat. censere, got. hazjan und das idg. Präsens *kˆens-e-ti (und *kˆns-éie-ti) ‘verkündigt, schätzt’, Stativ *kˆns-eh1- ‘verkündigt, geschätzt warden”. Indogermanica et Italica (Festschrift Helmut Rix). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 106-230. Cerca con Google

Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and Aspect: from Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Givòn, T. (2001). Syntax: an introduction, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Constructions Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Cerca con Google

Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Cerca con Google

Guéron, J. (1986). “Le verbe ‘avoir’” Recherches Linguistiques 14: 155-188. Cerca con Google

Haas, M. R. (1941). “Tunica”. In: F. Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages vol. 4, New York: J. J. Augustin, pp. 9-143. Cerca con Google

Haiden, M. (2005). Theta theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Hale, K. (1995). “Have and be: Linguistic diversity in the expression of simple relations”. Presidential address, LSA Annual Meeting. Cerca con Google

Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. (1993). “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations”. In: K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 53-109. Cerca con Google

Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Harðarson, J. A. (1998). “Mit dem Suffix *-eh1–bzw. *-(e)h1–ye/o- gebildete Verbalstämme im Indogermanischen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, hrsg. Wolfgang Meid. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Cerca con Google

Harley, H. (1995). Subjects, Events and Licensing. PhD Thesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Harley, H. (2002). “Possession and the double object construction” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 31-70. Cerca con Google

Harley, H. (2013). The 'bundling' hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. Ms. Little v Workshop, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 25th - 26th October 2010. Cerca con Google

Hermon, G. (1985). Syntactic Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris. Cerca con Google

Herschensohn, J. (1992). “Case marking and French Psych-Verbs” Lingvisticae Investigationes XVI, 1: 21-40. Cerca con Google

Herschensohn, J. (1999). “What Does Zero Syntax Add to an Analysis of French Psych Verbs?”. In: E. Treviño and J. Lema (eds.), Semantic Issues in Romance Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 105-119. Cerca con Google

Higginbotham, J. and Ramchand, G. (1997). “The Stage-Level/Individual-Level Distinction and the Mapping Hypothesis". Oxford Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics, 2, pp. 53–83. Cerca con Google

Hocquard, M. (1981). Les Verbs d’Etat en – ē – du Latin. Lille: Universite de Lille III. Cerca con Google

Hock, H. H. (1973). “On the phonemic status of Germanic i and e” In: B. B. Kachru et al. (eds.), Issues in Linguistic. Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: Illinois University Press, pp. 319-351. Cerca con Google

Hoffman, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1972). Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: C. H. Beck. Cerca con Google

Holisky, D. A. (1987). “The case of the intransitive subjects in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi)” Lingua 71: 103-132. Cerca con Google

Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. (1980). “Transitivity in grammar and discourse” Language 56, 2: 251-299. Cerca con Google

Iwata, S. (1995). “The Distinctive Character of Psych-Verbs as Causatives” Linguistic Analysis 1-2: 95-120. Cerca con Google

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Jasanoff, J. H. (1978). Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Cerca con Google

Jasanoff, J. H. (2003). “”Stative” - ē - revisited Die Sprache: 127-170. Cerca con Google

Jeong, Y. (2007). Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Johnson, K. (1991). “Object Positions” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577-636. Cerca con Google

Johnson, K. (1992). “Scope and Binding Theory: Comments on Zubizarreta”. In: T. Stowell and E. Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 26. San Diego: Academic Press Inc., pp. 259-275. Cerca con Google

Jónsson, J. G. (1998). “Sagnir með aukafallsfrumlagi” [Verbs with an oblique subject] Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 19–20: 11–43. Cerca con Google

Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Cerca con Google

Kayne, R. (1985). “Principles of Particle Constructions. In: J. Guéron and H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock (eds.), Grammatical Representation. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 101-1 Cerca con Google

40. Cerca con Google

Kayne, R. (1993). “Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection” Studia Linguistica 48, 1: 3-32. Cerca con Google

Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Kayne, R. (2002). “On Some Prepositions That Look DP-internal: English of and French de” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 71-115. Cerca con Google

Kayne, R. (2004). “Preposition as probes”. In: A. Belletti, (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 192-212. Cerca con Google

Kellogg, S. H. (1893). Grammar of the Hindi Language. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Cerca con Google

Keenan, E. L. and Comrie, B. (1977). “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63-99. Cerca con Google

Kim, J. (1969). “Events and Their Descriptions: Some Considerations”. In: N. Rescher (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel, pp. 198-215. Cerca con Google

Kim, J. (1976). “Events as Property Exemplifications”. In: M. Brand and D. Walton (eds.), Action Theory. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel, pp. 159-77. Cerca con Google

Kliffer, M. D. (1999). “The Western Romance drift away from external dative possessor” Word 50, 2: 155-175. Cerca con Google

Kratzer, A. (1993). “On External Arguments,” University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Occasional Papers 17: 103-130. Cerca con Google

Kratzer, A. (1995). “Stage-level and individual-level predicates”. In: N. G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Cerca con Google

Kratzer, A. (1996). “Severing the external argument from its verb”. In: J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109-137. Cerca con Google

Koizumi, M. (1993). “Object Agreement and the Split VP Hypothesis”. In: J. D. Bobaljik and C. Phillips (eds.), Papers on Case and Agreement I, Vol. 18. Cambridge: MITWPL, pp. 99-148. Cerca con Google

Koizumi, M. (1995). Phrase Structure In Minimalist Syntax. PhD Thesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Kortlandt, F. (2009). “C.C. Uhlenbeck on Indo-European, Uralic and Caucasian” Historische Sprachforschung 122: 3947. Cerca con Google

Lakoff, G. (1977). “Linguistic gestalts”. In: W. A. Beach and S. E. Fox, Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 236-287. Cerca con Google

Landau, I. (1999). “Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP” Lingua 107: 1-37. Cerca con Google

Landau, I. (2002). “Experiencer Objects are Oblique” Glot International 6, 9/10: 329-335. Cerca con Google

Landau, I. (2010). The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: descriptive application. Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cerca con Google

Larson, R. (1988). “On the double object construction” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 3: 335-391. Cerca con Google

Larson, R. (1990). “Double Objects Revisited: reply to Jackendoff” Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 589-632. Cerca con Google

Ledgeway, A. (2000). A comparative syntax of the dialects of southern Italy: a minimalist approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Cerca con Google

Ledgeway, A. (2009). Grammatica Diacronica del Napoletano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cerca con Google

Ledgeway, A. (2012). From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

Lehmann, W. P. (1985). “Ergative and active traits in Latin”. In: F. Plank (ed.), Relational Tipology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 243-256. Cerca con Google

Leumann, M. (1977). Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. München: C. H. Beck. Cerca con Google

Levin, B. (1989). “The Basque verbal inventory and configurationality”. In: L. Mara ́cz and Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 39–62. Cerca con Google

Levin, B. (1999). “Objecthood: An event structure perspective” CLS 35. Cerca con Google

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (1998). “Building verb meanings”. In: M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Chicago: CSLI publications, pp. 97–134. Cerca con Google

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2001). “An event structure account of English resultatives” Language 77: 766-97. Cerca con Google

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. Cerca con Google

Luraghi, S. (2010). “Experiencer predicates in Hittite”. In: R. Kim and N. Oettinger and E. Riecken and M. Weiss (eds.), “Ex Anatolia Lux”. Ann Arbor IN: Beech Stave Press, pp. 249–264. Cerca con Google

MacDonald, L. (1990). A Grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Maienborn, C. (2003). “On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences” Theoretical linguistics 31, 3: 275-316. Cerca con Google

Malchukov, A. (2008). “Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’ constructions: (re-) establishing the connection”. In: M. Donohue and S. Wichmann (eds.), Typology of languages with semantic alignment. Oxford: University Press, 200, pp. 76-101. Cerca con Google

Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Marantz, A. (2000). “Case and Licensing”. In: E. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11-30. Cerca con Google

McGinnis, M. (2001). “Variation in the syntax of applicatives” Linguistics Variation yearbook 1: 105-146. Cerca con Google

McGinnis, M. (2003). “Semantic and Morphological Restrictions in Experiencer Predicates”. In: J. T. Jensen and G. van Herk (eds.), Proceedings of the 2000 CLA Annual Conference, Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa. Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa, pp. 245-256. Cerca con Google

Meillet, A. (1924). “Le developpement du verb ‘avoir’” Antidoron: Festschrift J. Wackernagel, Göttingen: 9-13. Cerca con Google

Meillet, A. (1928). Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine. Paris: Hachette. Cerca con Google

Merlan, F. (1985). “Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflections”. In: J. Nichols and A. C. Woodbury, Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Approaches to Theory from the Field. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 324-362. Cerca con Google

Miklosich, F. (1868-1874). Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen. Vienne: Braumüller. Cerca con Google

Mithun, M. (1991). “Active/agentive Case Marking and Its Motivation” Language 67, 3: 510-546. Cerca con Google

Moro, A. (1988). “Per una teoria unificata delle frasi copulari” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 13: 81-110. Cerca con Google

Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Cerca con Google

Norberg, D. (1968). Manuel Pratique de Latin Médiéval. Paris: Picard & C. Cerca con Google

Nussbaum, A. (1976). Caland’s Law and the Caland System. PhD Thesis, Harvard University. Cerca con Google

Nussbaum, A. (1999). “Jocidus: An account of the Latin adjectives in –idus”. In: H. Eichner and H. C. Luschützky, Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Jochem Schndler. Prague: Enigma Corporation, pp. 265-272. Cerca con Google

Oldoni, M. (1972). Anonimo salernitano del X secolo. Napoli: Guida Editori. Cerca con Google

Olsen, B. A. (1992). “Latin –idus and the Indo - European Stative” Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 1-18. Cerca con Google

Olsen, B. A. (2000). “The Complex of Nasal Stems”. In: J. Clackson and B. A. Olsen (eds.), Indo-European in Indo-European word formation : proceedings of the Conference held at the university of Copenhagen, October 20-22, 2000, pp. 215-248. Cerca con Google

Oniga, R. (2007). Il Latino. Breve Introduzione Linguistica. Milano: Franco Angeli. Cerca con Google

Ormazabal, J. and Romero, J. (2010). “The derivation of dative alternation”. In: M. Duguine and S. Huidobro and N. Madariaga, Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 203-232. Cerca con Google

Palmer, L. R. (1954). The Latin Language. London: Faber & Faber. Cerca con Google

Parry, M. (2010). “Non-Canonical Subjects in the Early Italian Vernaculars” Archivio Glottologico Italiano XCV 2, 2010: 190-226. Cerca con Google

Penello, N. (2006). “Applicazione di elementi di linguistica formale alla didattica del latino”. In: R. Oniga and L. Zennaro (eds.), Atti della Giornata di Linguistica Latina. Venezia, pp. 159-178. Cerca con Google

Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2004). “Tense, Case, and the nature of syntactic categories”. In: J. Gueronand and J. Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Pinkster, H. (1984). Latijnse syntaxis en semantiek. Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner. Cerca con Google

Poletto, C. (2006). “Doubling as Economy”. Working Papers in Linguistics 16, University Ca’ Foscari of Venice, pp. 211-235. Cerca con Google

Poletto, C. (2008). “Doubling as splitting”. In: S. Barbiers and O. Koeneman and M. Lekakou and M. van der Ham (eds.), Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 37-68. Cerca con Google

Polo, C. (2005). Word Order between Morphology and Syntax. Padova: Unipress. Cerca con Google

Primus, B. (1999). Cases and Thematic Roles. Ergative, Accusative and Active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cerca con Google

Primus, B. and Lindner, K. (1994). “Variation in grammar and language acquisition”. In: R. Tracy and E. Lattey (eds.), How tolerant is universal grammar? Essays on language learnability and language variation. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 185-204. Cerca con Google

Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory. Ms. Rutgers University. Cerca con Google

Pustejovsky, J. (1991). “The syntax of event structure” Cognition 41: 47-81. Cerca con Google

Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. PhD Thesis, MIT. Cerca con Google

Quellet, H. (1969). Les dérivés latins en -or : étude lexicographique, statistique, morphologique et sémantique. Paris : C. Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: a First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Cerca con Google

Renou, L. (1961). Grammaire sanscrite. Paris: Maisonneuve. Cerca con Google

Reuland, E. (2000). Argument and Case: Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Ringe, D. (1990). “Evidence for the position of Thocarian in the Indo-European family?” Die Sprache 34, 1: 59-123. Cerca con Google

Risch, E. (1984). Gerundivum and Gerundium. New York: De Gruyter. Cerca con Google

Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Rizzi, L. (2006). “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects”. In: L. Cheng and N. Corver (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 97-133. Cerca con Google

Rix, H. (1992). Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstdat: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Cerca con Google

Rix, H. (2001). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Cerca con Google

Roberts, I. (1991). “NP-movement, Crossover and Chain Formation”. In: H. Haider and K. Netter (eds.), Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 17-52. Cerca con Google

Rothmayr, A. (2009). The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Sapir, E. (1917). “Review of C. C. Uhlenbeck, Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Noord-Amerika.” International Journal of American Linguistics 1: 82-86. Cerca con Google

Schiaparelli, L. (1903). I diplomi di Berengario I. Roma: Tipografia del Senato. Cerca con Google

Schiaparelli, L. (1927). Codice diplomatico longobardo. Roma: Tipografia del Senato. Cerca con Google

Schleicher, A. (1958). Litauische Grammatik. Prague: J. G. Calve’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Cerca con Google

Schmid, H. J. (2007). “Entrenchment, Salience, and Basic Levels”. In: D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117-138. Cerca con Google

Schrijver, P. (1991). The reflexes of the PIE laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi. Cerca con Google

Schweikert W. (2005). The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Schwyzer, E. (1959). Griechische Grammatik, Auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns griechischer Grammatik, 1. Band: Allgemeiner Teil, Leutlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion, 3. Auflage. München: C. H. Beck. Cerca con Google

Seefranz-Montag, A. (1983). Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung: die Entwicklung ‘subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Cerca con Google

Serbat, G. (1996). L’emploi des cas en latin. 1, Nominatif, vocatif, accusatif, génitif, datif. Louvain and Paris: Peeters. Cerca con Google

Shibatani, M. (2009). “Case and voice: case in derived construction”. In: A. L. Malchukov and A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 322-338. Cerca con Google

Shlonsky, U. (1992). “Resumptive Pronouns as a Last Resort” Linguistic Inquiry 23: 443-468. Cerca con Google

Sigurðsson, H. A. (2004). “Icelandic non-nominative subjects: facts and implications”. In: P. Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative Subjects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 137–159. Cerca con Google

Sornicola, R. (1997). “Alcune strutture con pronome espletivo nei dialetti italiani meridionali”. In: P. Benincà and G. Cinque and T. De Mauro and N. Vincent (eds.), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy. Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 323-340. Cerca con Google

Starke, M. (2005). Nanosyntax. Class lectures. CASTL, University of Tromsø. Cerca con Google

Stowell, T. (1986). “Psych-Movement in the Mapping Between D-Structure and LF”. Ms. GLOW 9. Cerca con Google

Strunk, K. (1980). “Zum idg. Medium und konkurrierenden Kategorien”. In: G. Brettschneider (ed.), Wege zur Universalien Forschung, prachwiss. Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von H. Seiler. Tübingen, pp. 321-337. Cerca con Google

de Swart, H. (1998). “Aspect shift and coercion” Natural language and linguistic theory 16: 347-385. Cerca con Google

Talmy, L. (1972). Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Ph.D Thesis University of California, Berkeley. Cerca con Google

Talmy, L. (1974). “Semantics and syntax of motion” In: J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics IV. New York: Academic Press, pp. 181–238. Cerca con Google

Talmy, L. (1976). “Semantic causative types”. In: M. Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of causative constructions. (Syntax and Semantics, 6). New York: Academic Press, pp. 43-116. Cerca con Google

Talmy, L. (1985). “Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms”. In: T. Shopen, (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, pp. 57-149. Cerca con Google

Talmy, L. (1988). “Force dynamics in language and cognition” Cognitive Science 12: 49-100. Cerca con Google

Taraldsen, K. T. (2010). “Unintentionally out of control. In: M. Duguine and S. Huidobro and N. Madariaga (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 283- 304. Cerca con Google

Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. PhD Thesis, MIT. Cerca con Google

Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cerca con Google

Touratier, C. (1994). Syntaxe Latine. Luvain-la-Neuve. Cerca con Google

Travis, L. (2010). Inner Aspect: the Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer. Cerca con Google

Truswell, R. (2011). “Relatives with a Leftward island” Natural languages and linguistic theory, 29: 291-322. Cerca con Google

Ungerer, F. and Schmid, H. J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London and New York: Longman. Cerca con Google

Vaillant, A. (1977). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves V: La Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Van Gijn, R. (2005). A grammar of Yurakaré. PhD Thesis, University of Nijmegen. Cerca con Google

Van Valin, R. D. (1990). “Semantic parameters of split intransitivity” Language, 66: 221–260. Cerca con Google

Van Valin, R. D. (1993). “A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar”. In: D. R. Van Valin (ed.), Advances in role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-164. Cerca con Google

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-sematics interface. Cambridge: CUP. Cerca con Google

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and Wilkins D. P. (1996). “The case for ‘‘effector’’: Case roles, agents and agency revisited”. In: M. Shibatani and S. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 289–322. Cerca con Google

Vendler, Z. (1957). “Verbs and Times” The Philosophical Review 66, 2: 143-160. Cerca con Google

Vendler, Z. (1967). “Linguistics in Philosophy”. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Cerca con Google

Vendryes, J. (1932). “Sur les verbes qui expriment l’idée de voir” Compte-rendu a l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 192-206. Cerca con Google

Vendryes, J. (1940). Sur quelques presents latins en -ē-. Paris: Klincksieck. Cerca con Google

Verhoeven, E. (2007). “Experiential Constructions in Yucatec Maya: A Typologically Based Analysis of a Functional Domain in a Mayan Language” Studies in Language Companion Series 87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cerca con Google

Wagner, H. (1950). Zur Herkunft Der Ē-Verba in Den Indogermanischen Sprachen. (Mit Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Germanischen Bildungen). Zürich: Print. Cerca con Google

Watkins, C. (1969). Indogermanische Grammatik, hrsg. von Jerzy Kurylowicz. Bd. III: Formenlehre. Erster Teil: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag. Cerca con Google

Watkins, C. (1971). “Hittite and Indo – European studies: the denominative statives in - ē - “ Transactions of the Philological Society: 51-93. Cerca con Google

Wechsler, S. (1995). The Semantic Basis of Argument Structure. Stanford CA: CSLI. Cerca con Google

Westerbergh, U. (1956). Chronicon Salernitanum, A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell. Cerca con Google

Woolford, E. (1997). “Four-way Case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 181–227. Cerca con Google

Woolford, E. (2006). “Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 111-131. Cerca con Google

Zaenen, A. and Maling, J. and Thráinsson, H. (1985). “Case and grammatical functions: the Icelandic passive” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record

EPrints Logo
Padua@Research is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.