Cover not available

In:Silent Instruments: Syntax, semantics, and acquisition of the instrumental role in Italian
Alice Suozzi
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 293] 2026
► pp. 182–201

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

References

Published online: 26 March 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.293.refs
Ackema, P. (2015). Arguments and Adjuncts. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook (pp. 246–273). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F. (2006). Instrument Subjects are Agents or Causers. In D. Baumer, D. Montero & M. Scanlon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 40–48). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alfano, I., Cutugno, F., De Rosa, A., Iacobini, C., Savy, R. & Voghera, M. (2014). VOLIP: a corpus of spoken Italian and a virtuous example of reuse of linguistic resources. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14) (pp. 3897–3901). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. (1975). Deletion and Proform Reduction. Journal of Linguistics, 11(2), 213–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. (1999). Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 124–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M. & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106(1), 87–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antelmi, D. (1997). La prima grammatica dell’italiano. Indagine longitudinale sull’acquisizione della morfosintassi italiana. Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 737–778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arka, W. I. (2014). Locative-related Roles and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction in Balinese. Linguistic Discovery, 12(2), 56–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495–527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, N. & Pustejovsky, J. (2006). A Type Composition Logic for Generative Lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aylett, M. & Turk, A. (2004). The Smooth Signal Hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bánhidi, Z. J. & Szabó, D. (1975). Lehrbuch der ungarischen Sprache. Hueber.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(4), 533–581.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. C., Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (1989). Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(2), 219–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbu, R.-M. (2015). Verbs and Participants: Nonlinguists’ intuitions. MA Thesis. Carleton University.
(2020). On the Psycholinguistic of Argumenthood. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carlton University.
Barbu, R.-M. & Toivonen, I. (2016). Arguments and Adjuncts: at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Florida Linguistics Papers, 3, 13–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A. & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky Wide Web: A Collection of Very Large Linguistically Processed Web-Crawled Corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., Dale, P. S. & Thal, D. (1994). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1999). Italian/Romance clitics: Structure and derivation. In H. Riemsdijk (Ed.), 5 Clitics in the Languages of Europe: Volume 5/Part 1: Clitics in the Languages of Europe (pp. 543–580). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berretta, M. (1985a). Ci vs. gli: un microsistema in crisi? In A. Franchi de Bellis & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso: teorie e applicazioni descrittive. Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 117–133). Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985b). I pronomi clitici nell’italiano parlato. In G. Holtus, & E. Radtke (Eds.), Gesprochenes Italienisch in Geschichte un Gegenwart (pp. 185–224). Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Tracce di coniugazione oggettiva in italiano. In F. Foresti, E. Rizzi & P. Benedini (Eds.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze. Atti del XX Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 125–150). Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berruto, G. (1985). Dislocazione a sinistra e grammatica dell’italiano parlato. In A. Franchi de Bellis & L. M. Savoia (Eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso: teorie e applicazioni descrittive. Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 59–82). Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo (2nd ed.). Carocci.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. (1986). The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One Word at a Time: The Use of Single Word Utterances Before Syntax. Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P., Hood, L., Bowerman, M., Maratsos, M. & Maratsos, M. P. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40(2), 1–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A. & Mikolov, T. (2017). Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2017, 5, 135–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boland, J. E. (2005). Visual Arguments. Cognition, 95(3), 237–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boland, J. E. & Blodgett, A. (2006). Argument Status and PP-Attachment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(5), 385–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boland, J. E. & Boehm-Jernigan, H. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 684–719. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. (1990). Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(4), 413–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6), 774–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1999). The form, the forming, and the formation of nominals. Paper presented at the 2nd Mediterranean Morphology Meeting.
Bortolini, U., Arfé, B., Caselli, M. C., & Leonard, L. B. (2002). Specific Language Impairment in Italian: the first steps in the search for a clinical marker. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(2), 77–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bortolini, U., Arfé, B., Caselli, M. C., Degasperi, L., Deevy, P. & Leonard, L. B. (2006). Clinical markers for Specific Language Impairment in Italian: The contribution of clitics and non-word repetition. International Journal of Language & Communication disorders, 41(6), 695 — 712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bottari, P., Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A. M. & Pfanner, L. (2001). The Italian determiner system in normal acquisition, specific language impairment, and childhood aphasia. Brain and Language, 77(3), 283–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1987). Commentary: Mechanisms of language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 438–462). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining Language Universals (pp. 73–101). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (2008). Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure. Implications for Learnability. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The Ontogenesis of Grammar: A Theoretical Symposium (pp. 153–186). New York Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E. & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (Ed.). (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. & Wechsler, S. (2015). Lexical-Functional Syntax (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 251–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1957). Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(1), 1–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In John R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (pp. 11–53). Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunetti, L., De Kuthy, K. & Riester, A. (2021). The Information-Structural Status of Adjuncts: A Question-under-Discussion-Based Approach. Discours, 28, 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunson, B. A. (1992). Thematic discontinuity. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto.
(1993). The Instrumental role: argument or adjunct? Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(1), 13–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, D. (2008). What’s New (and What’s Given) in the Theory of Focus? In S. Berson, A. Bratkievich, D. Bruhn, A. Campbell, R. Escamilla, A. Giovine, L. Newbold, M. Perez, M. Piqueras-Brunet & R. Rhomieux (Eds.), BLS 34 — Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 403–423). Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Intonation and Meaning. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelli, G. (2022). Implicit indefinite objects at the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: a probabilistic model of acceptability judgments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Scuola Normale Superiore.
Cappelli, G. & Lenci, A. (2020). PISA: A measure of Preference In Selection of Arguments to model verb argument recoverability. In I. Gurevych, M. Apidianaki & M. Faruqui (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (pp. 131–136). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caprin, C. & Guasti, M. T. (2009). The acquisition of morphosyntax in Italian: A cross-sectional study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(1), 23–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (2008). On different types of clitic clusters. In C. De Cat & K. Demuth (Eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure (pp. 41–82). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Morphologically complex clitic pronouns and spurious se once again. In V. Torrens, L. Escobar, A. Gavarró & J. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Movement and Clitics: Adult and Child Grammar (pp. 238–259). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). 19. Syntactic Effects Of Cliticization. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, volume 1 (pp. 595 — 653). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Sui limiti dei pronomi clitici: inventario ed estrazione. In A. Ledgeway, M. Cennamo & G. Mensching (Eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes. Section 4: Syntaxe, (pp. 49–62). ATILF/SLR.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Cliticization as Extraction: The Big DP Hypothesis Revisited. REVISTA DA ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE LINGUÍSTICA, 5, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In In H. Riemsdijk (Ed.), 5 Clitics in the Languages of Europe: Volume 5/Part 1: Clitics in the Languages of Europe (33–80). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., Cerutti, S. & Volpato, F. (2021). On the acquisition of third person dative clitic pronouns in Italian. Lingue e linguaggio, 2, 311–341.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic Roles and Language Comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic Relations (pp. 263–288). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carnie, A. (2002). Syntax: a generative introduction. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Leonard, L. B., Volterra, V. & Campagnoli, M. G. (1993). Toward mastery of Italian morphology: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Child Language, 20(2), 377–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Bates, E., Casadio, P., Fenson, J., Fenson, L., Sanderl, L. & Weir, J. (1995). A cross-linguistic study of early lexical development. Cognitive Development, 10(2), 159–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Bello, A., Rinaldi, P., Stefanini, S. & Pasqualetti, P. (2007a). Il primo vocabolario del bambino: gesti, parole e frasi. Valori di riferimento fra 8 e 36 mesi delle Forme complete e delle Forme brevi del questionario MacArthur-Bates CDI. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Pasqualetti, P. & Stefanini, S. (2007b). Parole e frasi nel “Primo vocabolario del bambino”. Nuovi dati normativi fra 18 e 36 mesi e Forma breve del questionario. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. (2017). Object Omission and the Semantics of Predicates in Italian in a Comparative Perspective. In L. Hellan, A. L. Malchukov & M. Cennamo (Eds.), Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, Volume 237 (pp. 252–273). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cerruti, M. & Ballarè, S. (2021). ParlaTO: corpus del parlato di Torino. Bollettino dell’Atlante Linguistico Italiano (BALI), 44, 171–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiari, I. & De Mauro, T. (2012). The new basic vocabulary of Italian: problems and methods. Statistica Applicata — Italian Journal of Applied Statistics, 22(1), 21–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A’ Dependencies. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, H.-W. (2010). The Distinction of Arguments and Adjuncts as a Gradient Notion. Language and Information, 14(1), 26–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(3), 425–504.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A. M., Bottari, P. & Pfanner, L. (1993). L’acquisizione della morfo-sintassi in italiano — Fasi e processi. Unipress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A., Pfanner, L., Villani, S. & Bottari, P. (2002). Il ritardo del linguaggio in età precoce: profili evolutivi ed indici di rischio. In M. C. Caselli & O. Capirci (Eds.), Indici di rischio nel primo sviluppo del linguaggio. Ricerca, clinica, educazione (pp. 377–393). Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cipriani, P., Pfanner, L., Chilosi, A. M., Cittadoni, L., Ciuti, A., Maccari, A., Pantano, N., Poli, P., Sarno, S., Bottari, P., Cappelli, G., Colombo, C. & Veneziano, E. (1989). Protocolli diagnostici e terapeutici nello sviluppo e nella patologia del linguaggio (1/84 Italian Ministry of Health). Stella Maris Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in Psychology, 9, 287–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, U. (2015). Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology, 6(2), 243–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conklin, K., Koenig, J.-P. & Mauner, G. (2004). The role of specificity in the lexical encoding of participants. Brain Language, 90(1–3), 221–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Copestake, A. (1992). The Representation of Lexical Semantic Information. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Sussex.
Copestake, A., Sanfilippo, A., Briscoe, T. & de Paiva, V. (1993). The ACQUILEX LKB: an introduction. In T. Briscoe, A. Copestake & V. de Paiva (Eds.), Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon (pp. 148–163). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2005). The canonical approach in typology*. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories (pp. 25–49). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language, 83(1), 8–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cote, S. A. (1996). Grammatical and Discourse Properties of Null Arguments in English. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Cotter, C. A. (1984). Inferring indirect objects in sentences: Some implications for the semantics of verbs. Language and Speech, 27, 25–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowper, E. A. A. (1992). A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crocetti, P., Fancelli, S., Colpizzi, I., Suozzi, A., Crocetti, E., Borgogni, E. & Gagliardi, G. (2021). T-PEC: a novel test for the elicited production of clitic pronouns in Italian. Preliminary data. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 35(7), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, d. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y. (2004). Null Objects in French and English. In J. Auger, J. C. Clements & B. Vance (Eds.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 258 (pp. 121–138). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Odorico, L. & S. Carubbi. (2003). Prosodic characteristics of early multi-word utterances in Italian Children. First Language, 23(1), 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’odorico, L., Carubbi, S., Salerni, N. & Calvo, V. (2001). Vocabulary development in Italian children: a longitudinal evaluation of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Journal of Child Language, 28(2), 351–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M. (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. Essays on actions and events, 5, 105–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, A. R. & Koenig, J.-P. (2000). The KEY to lexical semantics. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase-Structure Grammar.
De Mauro, T. (1980). Guida all’uso delle parole: parlare e scrivere semplice e preciso per capire e farsi capire. Editori Riuniti.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Grande dizionario italiano dell’uso. UTET.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). [URL].
DeArmond, R. C. & N. Hedberg. (1998). On Complements and Adjuncts. Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). The Configuration of Primary and Secondary Complements. Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delage, H., Durrleman, S. & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2016). Disentangling sources of difficulty associated with the acquisition of accusative clitics in French. Lingua, 180(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devescovi, A., Caselli, M. C., Ossella, T. & Alviggi, F. (1992). Strumenti di indagine sulle prime fasi dello sviluppo linguistico: risultati di una prova di ripetizione di frasi con bambini fra i due e i tre anni e mezzo. Rassegna di psicologia, 2: 29–54.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devescovi, A. & A. Marano. (2013). Lo sviluppo del lessico. In S. D’Amico & A. Devescovi (Eds.), Psicologia dello sviluppo del linguaggio (pp. 139–171). Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devescovi, A. & Pizzuto, P. (1995). Lo sviluppo grammaticale. In G. Sabbadini (Ed.), Manuale di neuropsicologia dell’età evolutiva. Zanichelli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Don, J. (2005). Roots, Deverbal Nouns and Denominal Verbs. In G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. C. Sgroi & S. Scalise (Eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Tipology. On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4), 91–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dosher, B. A. & Corbett, A. T. (1982). Instrument inferences and verb schemata. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 531–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In P. Jacobson & G. K. Pullum (Eds), The nature of syntactic representations (pp. 79 — 130). Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. In G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee & R. Turner (Eds). Properties, types, and meaning (pp. 69–129). Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Adjunct-to-argument reanalysis in a model of grammar growth. Paper presented at the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL ’94), University of South Carolina.
(2003). The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying Adjuncts (pp. 33–66). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (1994). Conditions on Chinese A-not-A Questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3, 261–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Chinese Evidence for Semi-Arguments. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 26, 117–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. (2007). On manners and circumstances. Interpreting utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces.Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim (pp. 39–50). Novus Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Haug, D. H. (Eds.). (2012a). Big events, small clauses: the grammar of elaboration. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. & Haug, D. T. (2012b). Co-eventive adjuncts: main issues and clarifications. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. T. Haug (Eds.), Big events, small clauses: the grammar of elaboration (pp. 23–54). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabrizio, C. (2013). The meaning of a noun converted into a verb. A semantic exploration on Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 25(2), 175–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farrell, P. (2005). Grammatical relations. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. & Kegl, J. (1989). Taxonomic structures and cross-category linking in the lexicon. In K. DeJong & Y. No (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL ‘93), 93–104. Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., McRae, T. & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 516–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–87). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1969). Types of Lexical Information. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Foundations of Language, vol. 10, pp. 109–137. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 12, 95–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gertner, Y., Scott, R. M. & Yuan, S. (2010). Syntactic bootstrapping. Wires Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(2), 143–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive psychology, 23(3), 331–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forker, D. (2014). A Canonical Approach to the Argument/Adjunct Distinction. Linguistic Discovery, 12(2), 27–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, A. F., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking Rationally: Uniform Information Density as an Optimal Strategy for Language Production. The 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 939–944.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Ramscar, M., Leonard, L. B. and Pine, J. M. (2021). Simulating the Acquisition of Verb Inflection in Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder in English and Spanish. Cognitive Science, 45, e12945. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Velasco, D. & Portero Muñoz, C. (2002). Understood Objects in Functional Grammar. Working papers in functional grammar, 76, 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Sanford, A. J. (1981). Bridging inferences and the extended domain of reference. In J. Long and A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 331–346). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavarrò, A., Torrens, V. & Wexler, K. (2010). Object clitic omission: two language types. Language acquisition, 17(4), 192–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language, 72(4), 683–712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glass, L. (2014). What Does It Mean for an Implicit Object to Be Recoverable?. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 20(1), 121–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Verbs Describing Routines Facilitate Object Omission in English. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 5(1), 44–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. (1990). The structural sources of verb meaning. Language Acquisition, 1(1), 3–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2001). Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences, 23(4–5), 503–524. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M. & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive linguistics 15(3), 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Shuff-Bailey, M., Olguin, R. & Ruan, W. (1995). Young children extend novel words at the basic level: Evidence for the principle of categorical scope. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 494–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goria, E. & Mauri, C. (2018). Il corpus KIParla: una nuova risorsa per lo studio dell’italiano parlato. In F. Masini & F. Tamburini (Eds.), CLUB Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 96–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., Gupta, P., Joulin, A. & Mikolov, T. (2018). Learning Word Vectors for 157 Languages. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimes, J. E. (1965). The Thread of Discourse. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41(1), 153–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(1976). Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. North Holland Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2006). Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French. Ph.D. Dissertation. McGill University.
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language Acquisition. The growth of grammar. Bradford books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Palma, S., Genovese, E., Stagi, P., Saladini, G. & Arosio, F. (2016). The production of direct object clitics in pre-school– and primary school–aged children with specific language impairments. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 30(9), 663–678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gysel, van J. (2010). La semantica della particella ci nell’italiano parlato informale: uno studio empirico, M.A. Thesis. Unversiteit Gent.
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–109). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). On the complex nature of simple predicators. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates (pp. 29–56). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language Structure and Language Function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140–165). Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10(2–3), 146–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Arguments and Adjuncts as Language-Particular Syntactic Categories and as Comparative Concepts. Linguistic Discovery, 12(2), 3–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedberg, N. & DeArmond, R. C. (1999). On Nominal Complements and Adjuncts. Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistics Society Meeting. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, D., Gorman, K. S. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickman, L., Taylor, J. & Raskin, V. (2016). Direct Object Omission as a Sign of Conceptual Defaultness. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, 516–521.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hole, D. (2015). Arguments and Adjuncts. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax — Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook, Volume 2 (pp. 1284 — 1320). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holisky, D. A. (1987). The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua, 71(1–4), 103–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iacobini, C. (2004). Parasintesi. In M. Grossman & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano (pp. 165 — 183). Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ingham, R. (1993). Input and Learnability: Direct-Object Omissibility in English. Language Acquisition, 3(2), 95–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inman, M. V. (1993). Semantics and Pragmatics of Colloquial Sinhala Involitive Verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.
Irani, A. (2019). Learning From Positive Evidence: The Acquisition Of Verb Argument Structure. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Isaacs, E. A. & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116(1), 26–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1983). Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 369–411.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Semantic structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janssen, T. M. V., Partee, B. (1997). Compositionality. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language (pp. 417–473). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jezek, E. (2017). Generative Lexicon Theory and Lexicography. In P. Hanks & G.-M. De Schryver (Eds.), International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography (p. 1–21). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Partecipanti impliciti nella struttura argomentale dei verbi. In S. Dallabrida & P. Cordin (Eds.), La Grammatica delle valenze (pp. 55–71). Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). La teoria della struttura argomentale dei verbi: problemi sintattici e proposte semantiche. In S. Schneider, G. Salvi & J. Garzonio (Eds.), La descrizione grammaticale dell’italiano. Parte 2 (pp. 47–66). Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jezek, E. & Lenci, A. (2007). When GL meets the corpus. A data driven investigation of semantic types and coercion phenomena. In P. Bouillon, L. Danlos & K. Kanzaky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jezek, E., Magnini, B., Feltracco, A., Bianchini, A. & Popescu, A. (2014). T-PAS: A resource of corpus-derived Typed Predicate Argument Structures for linguistic analysis and semantic processing. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), 890–895. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, H. & Rossdeutscher, A. (1994). Remarks on Lexical Structure and DRS Construction. Theoretical Linguistics, 20(2/3), 97–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (1978). Finsk Grammatik. Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1975). French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Person morphemes and reflexives in Italian, French, and related languages. In C. Tortora (Ed.), The Syntax of Italian Dialects (pp. 131–162). Oxford Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Lapata, M. (1998). Object Drop and Discourse Accessibility. In K. N. Shahin, S. Blake & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 362–374). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 3–92). Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan & P. Sells (eds.), Complex Predicates (pp. 473–499). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. & Davis, A. R. (2006). The KEY to lexical semantics representations. Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), 71–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G. & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89, 67–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., Bienvenue, B., Mauner, G. & Conklin, K. (2008). What With? The Anatomy of a (Proto)-Role. Journal of Semantics, 25(2), 175–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kravtchenko, E. (2014). Predictability and syntactic production: Evidence from subject omission in Russian. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 785–790.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurumada, C. & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production: optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 152–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1968). Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structure. Foundations of Language, 4, 4–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. R. (1976). Why you can’t do so into the sink. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Notes from the linguistic underground (pp. 101–111). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J. & Thompson, C. K. (2011). Real-time production of arguments and adjuncts in normal and agrammatic speakers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 985–1021. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2010). Roots, stems and word classes. In U. Ansaldo, J. Don & R. Pfau (Eds.), Parts of Speech: Descriptive tools, theoretical constructs (pp. 546–567). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2018). Distributional Models of Word Meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 151–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. & Sahlgren, M. (2023). Distributional Semantics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Specific Language Impairment across languages. Child Development Perspective, 8(1), 1–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1979). Instrumental “With” and the Control Relation in English. MIT AI Laboratory, Memo no. 552.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1988). Nonevent -er Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure. Linguistics, 26, 1067–1083. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schlökopf, J. Platt & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS 19) (pp. 849–856). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lockridge, C. B. & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 550–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzetti, M. I. (2008). The Null Instantiation of Objects as a Polysemy-Trigger. A Study on the English Verb See. Lexis Journal in English Lexicology, 1, 59–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological review, 101(4), 676–703. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacLaury, R. E. (1991). Prototypes Revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 55–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maguire, M. J., Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2006). A Unified Theory of Word Learning: Putting Verb Acquisition in Context. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 364–391). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T. & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 289–341). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mantovan, L. & Suozzi, A. (2023). Instrument Syntactic Realization in Italian and LIS. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale, 57(57), 87–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maouene, J., Laakso, A. & Smith, L. B. (2011). Object Associations of Early-Learned Light and Heavy English Verbs. First Language, 31(1), 109–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, A. P. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauner, G. & J.-P. Koenig. (2000). Linguistic vs. conceptual sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(1), 110–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 357–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16(3), 261–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McElree, B. & Griffith, T. (1998). Structural and lexical constraints on filling gaps during sentence comprehension: a time-course analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24(2), 432–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1970). The Acquisition of Language: The Study of Developmental Psycholinguistics. Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R. & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2), 137–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L. & Ferretti, T. R. (2005). A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory and Cognition, 33(7), 1174–1184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medina, T. N. (2007). Learning Which Verbs Allow Object Omission: Verb Semantic Selectivity and the Implicit Object Construction. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University.
Mervis, C. B. & E. Rosch. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, A. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture-word inference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013a). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J. (2013b). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3111–3119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R. S. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterances in morphemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24(2), 154–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, P. (1998). Complèments et circonstants: une distinction syntaxique ou sèmantique? Cycnos, 15, 91–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mittwoch, A. (2005). Unspecified Arguments in Episodic and Habitual Sentences. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect. Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation (pp. 237–254). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mosel, U. (2014). Corpus linguistic and documentary approaches in writing a grammar of a previously undescribed language. In T. Nakayama & K. Rice (Eds.), The Art and Practice of Grammar Writing. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication, 8, 135–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nagy, W. & Gentner, D. (1990). Semantic constraints on lexical categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(3), 169–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Næss, Å. (2007). Prototypical Transitivity. John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38(1/2), 1–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R. (1977). Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C. E. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Ads.), Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition (pp. 109–149). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nilsen, D. L. (1973). The Instrumental Case in English: Syntactic and Semantic Considerations. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nivre, J., de Marneffe, M.-J., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajič, J., Manning, C. D., McDonald, R., Petrov, S., Pyysalo, S., Silveira, N., Tsarfaty, R. & Zeman, D. (2016). Universal Dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk & S. Piperidis (Eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2016 (pp. 1659–1666). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Yamashita, Y. & Cho, S. (2008). Object Drop in Japanese and Korean. Language Acquisition 15(1), 58–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olsen, M. B. & Resnik, P. (1997). Implicit Object Constructions and the (In)Transitivity Continuum. Papers from the 33rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 33(1), 327–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ono, N. (1992). Instruments: A Case Study of the Interface between Syntax and Lexical Semantics. English Linguistics, 9, 196–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Stob, M. & Weinstein, S. (1985). Systems That Learn. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palermo, M. (2013). Linguistica testuale dell’italiano. Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pate, J. K. & Goldwater, S. (2015). Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently. Journal of Memory and Language, 78, 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patejuk, A. & Przepiórkowski, A. (2016). Reducing grammatical functions in Lexical Functional Grammar. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. Holloway King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (pp. 541–559).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pethõ, G. & Kardos, E. (2009). Cross-Linguistic Evidence and the Licensing of Implicit Arguments. In B. Behrens & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Structuring information in discourse: the explicit/implicit dimension. Oslo Studies in Language, 1(1), 34–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, S. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. In P. Kay (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(9), 3526–3529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretive grammars. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (pp. 655–726). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 399–441). Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Learnability and cognition (2nd ed.). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D. S. & Frost, L. A. (1987). Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26(3), 195–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M. C. (1992). The acquisition of Italian morphology. Implications for models of language development. Journal of Child Language, 19(3), 491–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). L’acquisizione della morfologia flessiva nel linguaggio spontaneo: evidenza per modelli innatisti o cognitivisti? In E. Cresti & M. Moneglia (Eds.), Ricerche sull’acquisizione dell’italiano (pp. 165–187). Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics. CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Head-driven phrase-structure grammar. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A. (2016a). Against the Argument–Adjunct Distinction in Functional Generative Description. The Prague Bullettin of Mathematics, 106, 5–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). How not to distinguish arguments from adjuncts in LFG. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. Holloway King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, 560–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Hierarchical lexicon and the argument/adjunct distinction. In M. Butt & T. Holloway King (Eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG’17 Conference (pp. 348–367). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A. & Patejuk, A. (2018). Arguments and Adjuncts in Universal Dependencies. In E. M. Bender, L. Derczynski, P. Isabelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 3837–3852). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 410–441.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Type Coercion and Lexical Selection. In J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 73–94). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995a). Linguistic Constraints on Type Coercion. In P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics (pp. 71–97). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995b). The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Lexical Shadowing and Argument Closure. MS Thesis. Brandeis University.
(2001). Type Construction and the Logic of Concepts. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The Language of Word Meaning (pp. 91–123). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Type theory and lexical decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Science, 7(1), 39–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Co-compositionality in Grammar. In W. Hinzen, E. Machery & M. Werning (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (pp. 371–382). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Boguraev, B. (1993). Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 63, 193–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Jezek, E. (2008). Semantic Coercion in Language: Beyond Distributional Analysis. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 181–214.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Joshi, A. (2017). Lexical Factorization and Syntactic Behavior. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 15(1), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Randall, J. H. (1992). The catapult hypothesis: An approach to unlearning. In J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck & T. Roeper (Eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: Continuity and change in development (pp. 93–138). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with θ — roles. In W. Wilkins (Ed), Thematic Relations (pp. 7–36). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rasetti, L. (2003). Optional categories in early French syntax: a developmental study of root infinitives and null arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Genève.
Ratitamkul, T., Goldberg, A. E. & Fisher, C. (2004). The Role of Discourse Context in Determining the Argument Structure of Novel Verbs with Omitted Arguments. In Clark, E. V. (ed.), Constructions and acquisition. Proceedings of the 32nd Stanford Child Language Research Forum (pp. 12–19). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Definite NP Anaphora and C-Command Domains. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(4), 605–635.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renzi, L. (1989). Sviluppi paralleli in italiano e nelle altre lingue romanze. I pronomi clitici nella lunga durata. In F. Foresti, E. Rizzi & P. Benedini (Eds.), L’italiano tra le lingue romanze. Atti del XX Congresso Internazionale di Studi (pp. 99 — 113). Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Resnik, P. S. (1993). Selection and Information: A Class-Based Approach to Lexical Relationships. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
(1996). Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61(1–2), 127–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Noll, K. R. & Grimm, H. (1997). An Extended Optional Infinitive Stage in German-Speaking Children With Specific Language Impairment. Language Acquisition, 6(4), 255–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K. & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense Over Time: The Longitudinal Course of Tense Acquisition in Children With Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(6), 1412–1431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissman, L. (2010). Instrumental with, locatum with and the argument/adjunct distinction. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts. Linguistic Society of America. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013a). Event Participant Representations and the Instrumental Role: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University.
(2013b). Periphrastic use: a modal account of instrumentality. In Y. Fainleib, N. LaCara, & Y. Park (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the North-East Linguistics Society, Vol. 2 (pp. 137–150). GLSA Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissman, L., Rawlins, K. (2017). Ingredients of Instrumental Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 34(3), 507–537. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissman, L., Rawlins, K. & Landau, B. (2015). Using instruments to understand argument structure: Evidence for gradient representation. Cognition, 142, 266–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissman, L., van Putten, S. & Majid, A. (2022). Evidence for a Shared Instrument Prototype from English, Dutch, and German. Cognitive Science, 46, 2–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, M. (1992). A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. K. & Michaelis, L. A. (2010). A Constructional Account of Genre-Based Argument Omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russo, L. (2021). Arguments, Adjuncts and Instruments in English and Turkish. MA Thesis. Carleton University.
Sabatini, F. (1985). L’italiano dell’uso medio: una realtà tra le varietà linguistiche italiane. In G. Holtus & E. Radtke (Eds.), Gesprochenes Italienisch in Geschichte un Gegenwart (pp. 154–184). Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. (2005). Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23(3), 687–755. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, G. A. (1975). Invariant Ordering. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1983). Morfologia lessicale. CLESP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scalise, S. & Bisetto, A. (2008). La struttura delle parole. Il Mulino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. (1975). Conceptual Information Processing. North-Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schikowski, R., Bickel, B. & Paudyal, N. P. (2015). Flexible valency in Chintang. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency Classes in the World’s Languages (pp. 669–708). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1974). Relational concepts underlying language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives — Acquisition, retardation and intervention (pp.129–151). University Park Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 189–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case: Semantic and Syntactic Categories in English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1995). PP attachment and argumenthood. In C. T. Schütze, J. Ganger & K. Brolhier (Eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition (pp. 95–151). MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 409–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sedivy, J. & Spivey-Knowlton, M. (1994). The use of structural, lexical and pragmatic information in parsing attachment ambiguities. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 389–413). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1995). Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. C. L. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 550–569). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sgall, P. & Hajičová, E. (1970). A “Functional” Generative Description. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 14, 9–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E. & Panevová, J. (1986). The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Reidel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shi, J., Rees, A. & H. Rohde. (2022). Adapting to children: Information redundancy in language production. Abstract from 9th Experimental Pragmatics Conference.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Somers, H. L. (1984). On the Validity of the Complement-Adjunct Distinction in Valency Grammar. Linguistics, 22(4), 507–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparck Jones, K. (1986). Synonymy and Semantic Classification. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speas, M. (1990). Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Kiuwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1998). Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure. Subjects, Agreement, Case and Clitics. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stella, G., Pizzoli, C. & Tressoldi, P. (2000). Peabody: test di vocabolario recettivo. Omega Edizioni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoltz, T., Stroh, C. & Urdze, A. (2013). Comitatives and Instrumentals. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Zenodo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suozzi, A. & Gagliardi, G. (2022a). The acquisition of the clitic ci among typically developing Italian preschoolers: preliminary data. Linguistik Online, 116(4), 77–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022b). I pronomi clitici e la diagnosi del Disturbo del Linguaggio in età evolutiva: sull’utilizzo del clitico “ci”. CHIMERA: Revista de Corpus de Lenguas Romances y Estudios Lingüísticos, 9, 265–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tal, S., Grossman, E. & Arnon, I. (2021). Infant-directed Speech Becomes Less Redundant as Infants Grow: Implications for Language Learning. Cognition, 249, 105817. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tal, S. Grossman, E. Arnon, I. (2024). Infant-directed speech becomes less redundant as infants grow: Implications for language learning. Cognition, 249, 105817. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and the syntax of motion. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 4 (pp. 181–238). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). Semantic Causative Types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions (pp. 43–116). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume 1. Concept Structuring Systems (Language, Speech and Communication). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, M. & Gelman, S. A. (1989). Incorporating new words into the lexicon: Preliminary evidence for language hierarchies in two-year-old children. Child Development, 60(3), 625–636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. (1959). Elèments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 15–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of child language, 28(1), 127–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tily, H. & Piantadosi, S. T. (2009). Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for morepredictable meanings. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tonelli, L. & Fabris, M. (2005). L’acquisizione della flessione verbale esemplificazione di un metodo di ricerca. Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere dell’Università degli Studi di Sassari, 2–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Travis, L. (2000). Event Structure in Syntax. In C. L. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects. The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax (pp. 145–185). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. & Kim, A. E. (1998). How To Prune A Garden Path By Nipping It In The Bud: Fast-Priming Of Verb Argument Structures. Journal of Memory and Language 39(1), 102–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuller, L., Delage, H., Monjauzea, C., Pillerb, A.-G., & Barthez, M.-A. (2011). Clitic pronoun production as a measure of atypical language development in French. Lingua, 121(3), 423–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tutunjian, D. & Boland, J. E. (2008). Do We Need a Distinction between Arguments and Adjuncts? Evidence from Psycholinguistic Studies of Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4), 631–646. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Hooste, K. (2018). Instruments and Related Concepts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2001). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & Lapolla, R. (1997). Syntax: form, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & Wilkins, D. P. (1996). The case for “Effector”: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp. 289–322). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varlokosta, S., Belletti, A., Costa, J., Friedmann, N., Gavarró, A., Grohmann, K. K., Guasti, M. T., Tuller, L., Lobo, M., Anđelković, D., Argemí, N., Avram, L., Berends, S., Brunetto, V., Delage, H., Ezeizabarrena, M.-J., Fattal, I., Haman, E., van Hout, A., Jensen de López, K., Katsos, N., Kologranic, L., Krstić, N., Kuvac Kraljevic, J., Miękisz, A., Nerantzini, M., Queraltó, C., Radic, Z., Ruiz, S., Sauerland, U., Sevcenco, A., Smoczyńska, M., Theodorou, E., van der Lely, H., Veenstra, A., Weston, J., Yachini, M., & Yatsushiro, K. (2016). A cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of clitic and pronoun production. Language Acquisition, 23(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vater, H. (1978). On the possibility of distinguishing between complements and adjuncts. In W. Abraham (ed.), Valence, semantic case and grammatical relations, Volume 1 (pp. 21–45). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R. (1994). The development of an appreciation of specific linkages between linguistic and conceptual organization. Lingua, 92, 229–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waxman, S. R. & Kosowski, T. (1990). Nouns mark category relations: Toddlers’ and preschoolers’ word-learning biases. Child Development, 61(5), 1461–1473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint. A new explanation for the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106(1–4), 23–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Lenneberg’s dream: learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Y. Levy & J. C. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language Competence across Populations (pp. 239–284). Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. W. (1980). Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Karoma.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilks, Y. (1975). A Preferential Pattern Seeking Semantics for Natural Language Processing. Artificial Intelligence, 6(53), 53–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wojcik, R. H. (1976). Where Do Instrumental NPs Come From? In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions (pp. 165–180). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive psychology, 56(3), 165–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yasutake, T. (1987). Objectless Transitives in English. The Bulletin of Aichi University of Education, 36, 43–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On clitics. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Clitics and particles. Language, 61(2), 283–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue