[1]
|
Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic inter pretation. Foundations of Language, 7, 387-396.
|
[2]
|
Andrews, A. D. (2007). The major functions of the noun phrase. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 64-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
[3]
|
Baker, M. C. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
|
[4]
|
Baker, M. C. (1997). Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In L. Hae geman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 72-137). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2
|
[5]
|
Beavers, J. T. (2006). Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
|
[6]
|
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ theory. Natural Lan guage and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-352. doi:10.1007/BF00133902
|
[7]
|
Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.
|
[8]
|
Bowerman, M. F. (1974). Discussion summary—Development of con cepts underlying language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives—Acquisition, retardation, and inter vention (pp. 191-209). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
|
[9]
|
Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics, 28, 1253-1289. doi:10.1515/ling.1990.28.6.1253
|
[10]
|
Bowerman, M., & Croft, W. (2008). The acquisition of the English causative alternation. In M. Bowerman, & P. Brown (Eds.), Cross linguistic perspectives on argument structure (pp. 279-307). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
[11]
|
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children’s first word combinations. Monogra phs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41 (1, Serial No. 164). doi:10.2307/1165959
|
[12]
|
Braine, M. D. S., & Hardy, J. A. (1982). On what cases there are, why they are, and how they develop: An amalgam of a priori considera tions, speculation, and evidence from children. In E. Wanner, & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 219-239). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
[13]
|
Chomsky, N. (1982). The generative enterprise: A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.
|
[14]
|
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
[15]
|
Davis, A. R. (2001). Linking by types in the hierarchical lexicon. Stan ford, CA: CSLI Publications.
|
[16]
|
Davis, A. R., & Koenig, J.-P. (2000). Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language, 76, 56-91.
|
[17]
|
Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion of “thematic role”. In G. Chiercha, B. H. Partee, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types and meaning (pp. 69-129). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_3
|
[18]
|
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
|
[19]
|
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav ioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429-492.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
|
[20]
|
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
|
[21]
|
Fillmore, C. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In R. A. Jacobs, & P. A. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transforma tional grammar (pp. 120-133). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
|
[22]
|
Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Form and meaning in language, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
|
[23]
|
Fortus, R. (1996). Semantic relations in the acquisition of language: An analysis of one child’s first word combinations. MA Thesis, Jerusa lem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
|
[24]
|
Gelman, S. A., & Opfer, J. E. (2002). Development of the animate inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 151-166). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
doi:10.1002/9780470996652.ch7
|
[25]
|
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321-376.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00686-9
|
[26]
|
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generali zation in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
|
[27]
|
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
[28]
|
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203-257. doi:10.2307/415332
|
[29]
|
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991a). Affect edness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acqui sition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153-195.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90035-3
|
[30]
|
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991b). Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language, 18, 115-151. doi:10.1017/S0305000900013325
|
[31]
|
Guberman, A. (1992). The development of the verb category in the He brew child language. Ph.D. Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
|
[32]
|
Hoekstra, T. (1992). Aspect and Theta Theory. In I. M. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp. 145-174). Berlin: Foris.
doi:10.1515/9783110872613.145
|
[33]
|
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson. S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251-299.
|
[34]
|
Hudson, R. (1992). So-called “double objects” and grammatical rela tions. Language, 68, 251-276. doi:10.2307/416941
|
[35]
|
Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 369-411.
|
[36]
|
Jackendoff, R. (1990a). On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 427-456.
|
[37]
|
Jackendoff, R. (1990b). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
[38]
|
Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
|
[39]
|
Kako, E. (2006). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cog nition, 101, 1-42. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.08.002
|
[40]
|
Kasof, J., & Lee, J. Y. (1993). Implicit causality as implicit salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 877-892.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.877
|
[41]
|
Keren-Portnoy, T. (In preparation). Long is easy, short is hard.
|
[42]
|
Kiparsky, P. (2001). Structural case in Finnish. Lingua, 111, 315-376.
doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00035-8
|
[43]
|
Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25, 265-288.
doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80006-9
|
[44]
|
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
|
[45]
|
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
[46]
|
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610479
|
[47]
|
MacWhinney, B. (1999). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 213-256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
|
[48]
|
Maratsos, M. P. (1979). How to get from words to sentences. In D. Aronson, & R. W. Rieber (Eds.), Psycholinguistic research: Implica tions and applications (pp. 285-356). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl baum.
|
[49]
|
Maratsos, M. (1981). Problems in categorial evolution: Can formal categories arise from semantic ones? In W. Deutsch (Ed.), The child’s construction of language (pp. 245-261). London: Academic Press.
|
[50]
|
McClure, K., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2006). Investigating the abstractness of children’s early knowledge of argument structure. Journal of Child Language, 23, 693-720.
doi:10.1017/S0305000906007525
|
[51]
|
McRae, K., Todd, R., Ferreti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137-176. doi:10.1080/016909697386835
|
[52]
|
Newmeyer, F. J. (2002). Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally-based optimality-theoretical syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 43-80. doi:10.1023/A:1014290005775
|
[53]
|
Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619-653. doi:10.1017/S0305000999003931
|
[54]
|
Ninio, A. (2006). Language learning and the learning curve. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299829.001.0001
|
[55]
|
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
|
[56]
|
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argu ment structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
[57]
|
Premack, D. (1990). The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects. Cog nition, 36, 1-16. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90051-K
|
[58]
|
Quine, W. Van O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
[59]
|
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B. (1988). What to do with θ-roles. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 21: Thematic relations (pp. 7-36). San Diego: Academic Press.
|
[60]
|
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Beth Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 129-167. doi:10.1017/S0022226707004975
|
[61]
|
Rozwadowska, B. (1988). Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 21: Thematic rela tions (pp. 147-165). San Diego: Academic Press.
|
[62]
|
Rosta, A. (2002). Review of the book cognitive space and linguistic case, by Izchak M. Schlesinger. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 69-78.
doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00013-3
|
[63]
|
Schachter, P., & Otanes, F. T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
|
[64]
|
Schlesinger, I. M. (1971). Production of utterances and language acqui sition. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar (pp. 63-101). New York: Academic Press.
|
[65]
|
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). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
|
[66]
|
Schlesinger, I. M. (1977). Production and comprehension of utterances. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
[67]
|
Schlesinger, I. M. (1988). The origin of relational categories. In Y. Levy, I. M. Schlesinger, & M. D. S. Braine (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition (pp. 121-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
|
[68]
|
Schlesinger, I. M. (1989). Instruments as agents: On the nature of se mantic relations. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 189-210.
doi:10.1017/S0022226700012147
|
[69]
|
Schlesinger, I. M. (1992). The experiencer as an agent. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 315-332.
doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90016-Q
|
[70]
|
Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer sity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511551321
|
[71]
|
Shibatani, M. (1996). Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive ac count. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical con structions: Their form and meaning (pp. 157-194). Oxford: Claren don Press.
|
[72]
|
Siewierska, A. (1991). Functional grammar. London: Routledge.
|
[73]
|
Slobin, D. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In G. B. Flores D’Arcais, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (pp. 174-186). Amsterdam: North Holland.
|
[74]
|
Slobin, D. (1979). The role of language in language acquisition. Invited address to the 50th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological As sociation, Philadelphia. Unpublished ms., Berkeley, CA: University of California.
|
[75]
|
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527678
|
[76]
|
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic compe tence? Cognition, 74, 209-253. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4
|
[77]
|
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
|
[78]
|
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
|
[79]
|
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantic interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610578
|
[80]
|
Van Valin Jr., R. D., & 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: Clarendon Press.
|
[81]
|
Wilkins, W. (1988). Thematic structure and reflexivization. In W. Wil kins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic relations (pp. 191-213). San Diego: Academic Press.
|
[82]
|
Witman, S. (2000). Mussa’im yeshirim va’akifim betsarfatit, ivrit ve’anglit: Mehkar hashva’ati [Direct and oblique objects in French, Hebrew, and English: A comparative study]. Unpublished paper, Je rusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
|
[83]
|
Zubizaretta, M. L. (1987). Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
|