Cover not available

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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Beavers, J. (2013). Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics (54): 681–706. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and Theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (6): 291–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax, A Government and Binding Approach. Rdidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(2): 105–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, J. (2020). On the unaccusativity of the English verb die. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (6): 817–829.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, L. (2017). English transitive particle verbs: Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, (4): 330–354.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & L. McNally. (2005). Scale structure, degree modifications, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, (2): 345–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, (19): 335–391.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). English Verbal Diathesis, Lexicon Project Working Papers 32, MIT Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge: MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1990). Cognate Objects as Thematic Objects, Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 161–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maya, A. (1996). A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface, UCL Working papers in Linguistics, (8), 1–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakajima, K. (2006). Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 371: 674–684. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1983). Studies in Relational Grammar I, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The Syntax of Event Structure, Cognition, 41(1–3): 47–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed), Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 199–220). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubinarreta, M. L. (1987). Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue