Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective

Lingvisticae Investigationes

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 285-312

  Levin, Beth ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63049135047     PISSN: 03784169     EISSN: 15699927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/li.31.2.12lev     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (59)

1. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. On Clitics, Feature Movement and Double Object Alternations. NELS 29-2: Papers from the Poster Sessions, 41-55.
2. Aristar, Anthony R. 1996. The Relationship between Dative and Locative: Kuryłowicz's Argument from a Typological Perspective. Diachronica 13, 207-224].
3. Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), 73-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Beck, Sigrid; Kyle Johnson. 2003. Double Objects Again. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 97-123.
5. Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and Allatives. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, J. Wirth (eds.), 173-191. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
6. Botwinik-Rotem, Irena. 2003. The Thematic and Syntactic Status of Ps: The Dative, Directional, Locative Distinction. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II, J. Lecarme (ed.), 79-104. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
7. Croft, William A. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William; Jóhanna Barodal; Willem Hollmann; Maike Nielsen; Violeta Sotirova; Chiaki Taoka. 2001. Discriminating Verb Meanings: The Case of Transfer Verbs. Handout. LAGB Autumn Meeting, Reading.
8. Davidse, Kristin. 1996. Functional Dimensions of the Dative in English. In The Dative Volume 1: Descriptive Studies, W. Van Belle, W. Van Langendonck (eds.), 289-338. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
9. Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. On Primary Objects, Secondary Objects and Antidative. Language 62, 808-845.].
10. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. Discourse Constraints on Dative Movement. In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, T. Givón, (ed.), 441-467. New York: Academic Press.
11. Francez, Itamar. 2002. Hebrew el and le and the Pronominal Suffixes. Ms. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
12. Francez, Itamar. 2006. Possessors, Goals, and the Classification of Ditransitive Predicates: Evidence from Hebrew. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6: Selected papers from CSSP 2005, O. Bonami, P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), 137-154. Online at http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/ eiss6/index_en.html].
13. Gerdts, Donna B. 1993. Mapping Halkomelem Grammatical Relations. Linguistics 31, 591-621.
14. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case. In Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, F. Plank (ed.), 151-182. London: Academic Press.
15. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Goldberg, Adele E. 1997. The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions. In Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, M. Verspoor, K.D. Lee, E. Sweetser, (eds.), 383-398. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
17. Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Goldsmith, John. 1980. Meaning and Mechanism in Grammar. In Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics, S. Kuno (ed.), 423-449.
19. Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
20. Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
21. Gropen, Jess; Steven Pinker; Michelle Hollander; Richard G. Goldberg; Ronald Wilson. 1989. The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English. Language 65, 203-257].
22. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in Jeffrey S. Gruber. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
23. Hale, Ken; Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the Double Object Construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, P. Pica, J. Rooryck (eds.), 31-70. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
25. Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-Linguistic Comparison. In The New Psychology of Language II, M.Tomasello (ed.), 211-242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-Called 'Double Objects' and Grammatical Relations.Language 68, 251-276].
27. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Press.
29. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of 'Subject'. In Subject and Topic, C.N. Li (ed.), 303-333. New York: Academic Press.
31. Koenig, Jean-Pierre; Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical Modality and the Structure of Lexical Semantic Representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 71-124].
32. Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in Dative Alternation. WCCFL 18, 260-271.
33. Krifka, Manfred. 2001. Lexical Representations and the Nature of the Dative Alternation. Handout. Conference on the Lexicon in Linguistic Theory, Düsseldorf.
34. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An Event Structure Perspective. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 1: The Main Session, 223-247.
36. Levin, Beth. 2004. Verbs and Constructions: Where Next?. Handout. Western Conference on Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
37. Levin, Beth; Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Levinson, Lisa. 2005. 'To' in Two Places in the Dative Alternation. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, S. Arunachalam, T. Scheffler, S. Sundaresan, J. Tauberer (eds.), Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11.1, 155-168. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
39. Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping Among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles. Lingua 111,419-464].
40. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, S.A. Mchombo (ed.), 113-150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
41. McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The Interpretation of German Datives and English have. In Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure, D. Hole, A. Meinunger, W. Abraham (eds.), 185-211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
42. Mohanan, Tara; K.P. Mohanan. 1999. On Representations in Grammatical Semantics. In Grammatical Semantics: Evidence for Structure in Meaning, T. Mohanan, L. Wee (eds.), 23-75. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
43. Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
44. Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
45. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Polinsky, Maria. 1996. A Non-Syntactic Account of Some Asymmetries in the Double Object Construction. In Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, J.-P. Koenig (ed.), 403-422. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
48. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply To. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 7.1,197-210. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
49. Ransom, Evelyn N. 1979. Definiteness and Animacy Constraints on Passive and Double-Object Constructions in English. Glossa 13, 215-240.
50. Rappaport Hovav, Malka; Beth Levin. 1998. Building Verb Meanings. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, M. Butt, W. Geuder (eds.), 97-134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
51. Rappaport Hovav, Malka; Beth Levin. 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129-167.
52. Sadakane, Kumi; Masatoshi Koizumi. 1995. On the Nature of the 'Dative' Particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33, 5-33.
53. Siewierska, Anna. 1998. Languages with and without Objects: The Functional Grammar Approach. Languages in Contrast 1, 173-190.
54. Snyder, Kieran Margaret. 2003. The Relationship between Form and Function in Ditransitive Constructions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
55. Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Thought. Cognitive Science 12, 49-100].
56. Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. Information Flow and Dative Shift in English Discourse. In Development and Diversity: Language Variation Across Time and Space, J.A. Edmondson, C. Feagin, P. Mülhäusler (eds.), 239-253. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
57. Thompson, Sandra A. 1995. The Iconicity of 'Dative Shift' in English: Considerations from Information Flow in Discourse. In Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes, M.E. Landsberg (ed.), 155-175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
58. Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
59. Ziv, Yael; Gloria Sheintuch. 1979. Indirect Objects - Reconsidered. CLS 15, 390-404. Chicago, IL.: Chicago Linguistic Society.