Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp.401428
References (43)
References
Anderson, S. (1977). Comments on the Paper by Wasow. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 361–378). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. (2013). Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics (54): 681–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (6): 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax, A Government and Binding Approach. Rdidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The Logical Form of Action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson (1980), Essays on Action and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (2001). English particle verbs: Theory and didactic application. In M. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1968). The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (Eds), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–90). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winson.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (2): 105–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Han, J. (2020). On the unaccusativity of the English verb die . Foreign Language Teaching and Research (6): 817–829.Google Scholar
Han, L. (2017). English transitive particle verbs: Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, (4): 330–354.Google Scholar
Hay, J. et al. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In T. Mathews & D. Strolovitch (Eds.), SALT IX (pp. 127–144). Ithaca: CLPC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & L. McNally. (2005). Scale structure, degree modifications, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, (2): 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexical Matters, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, (19): 335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1985). Lexical Semantics in Review: An Introduction. In B. Levin (Ed), Lexical Semantics in Review, Lexicon Project Working Papers 1, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.Google Scholar
(1989). English Verbal Diathesis, Lexicon Project Working Papers 32, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.Google Scholar
(1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macfarland, T. (1995). Cognate Objects and the Argument/Adjunct Distinction in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.
Merlan, F. (1985). Split intransitivity: functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. In J. Nichols & A. Woodbury (Eds), Grammar inside and outside the clause; some approaches to theory from the field (pp. 324–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1990). Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects, Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 161–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maya, A. (1996). A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface, UCL Working papers in Linguistics, (8), 1–30.Google Scholar
Nakajima, K. (2006). Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 37 1: 674–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostler, N. (1979). ‘Case Linking: A Theory of Case and Verb Diathesis Applied to Classical Sanskrit’, Ph.D. dissertation.
Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1): 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1983). Studies in Relational Grammar I, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D., & Postal, P. (1984). ‘The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law’. In D. Perlmutter & C. Rosen (Eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 81–125). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The Syntax of Event Structure, Cognition, 41 (1–3): 47–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1979). The Syntactic Forms of Predication, PhD. Dissertation, MIT.
Quirk et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1988). ‘What to do with Theta-roles’. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations, Syntax and Semantics 211 (pp. 7–36), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (1984). ‘The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations’. In D. M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2 (pp. 38–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1983). Aspects of Warlpiri Morphology and Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed), Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 199–220). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, S. (2005). Resultatives under the “Event-Argument Homomorphism”. In N. Erteschitshir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect (255–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, Max. (1923/1950). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–88). New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Zubinarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar