Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:44:52.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L-syntax and phono-symbolism: on the status of ideophones in complex predicates*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

Ludovico Franco
Ludovico Franco*
Affiliation:
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
*
franco.ludovico@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, the author demonstrates that verbal compound constructions involving an ideophone and a light verb represent a widespread syntactic device in the world's languages. The author provides evidence that phono-symbolic morphemes cannot be treated as ‘bare’ direct objects in such constructions. Ideophones appearing in the light verb-adjacent position form a semantic unit with the verbal predicate, despite the fact that in some languages they can be syntacticized as (bare) nouns and appear in argumental position. Specifically, ideophones in complex predicates are part of the verbal domain with which they ‘blend’ (yielding a single predicate) through the mechanism of conflation, along the lines of Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002), and building on Ramchand (2008).

Résumé

Dans cet article, l'auteur montre que les constructions verbales composées impliquant un idéophone et un verbe léger constituent un dispositif syntaxique répandu dans les langues du monde. L'auteur argumente que dans de telles constructions, les morphèmes phono-symboliques ne peuvent pas être traités comme des objets directs « nus ». Les idéophones qui apparaissent dans la position adjacente à un verbe léger forment une unité sémantique avec le prédicat verbal, bien que dans certaines langues ils puissent être syntactisés comme des noms « nus » et apparaître en position argumentale. Plus précisément, les idéophones dans les prédicats complexes font partie du domaine verbal avec lequel ils se combinent, grâce au mécanisme de la conflation, pour produire un prédicat unique, selon la proposition de Hale et Keyser (1993, 2002) et en s'appuyant sur Ramchand (2008).

Keywords

ideophonescomplex predicatesinternal argumentslight verbsL-syntaxIdéophonesprédicats complexesarguments internesverbes légersL-syntaxe
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 62 , Issue 2: Structuring sensory imagery: Ideophones across languages and cultures/La structuration de l'imagerie sensorielle : les idéophones dans diverses langues et cultures , June 2017 , pp. 243 - 279
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank audiences at CLUNL, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, and CISCL, Università di Siena, where parts of this article were presented — in particular, Adriana Belletti, Joao Costa, Oana Lungu and Luigi Rizzi. I also wish to thank Antonio Civardi, Rita Manzini, Leonardo Savoia and two anonymous reviewers of CJL for their extremely helpful comments and suggestions. All errors are my own. Special thanks are due to the editors of this special issue, Solveiga Armoskaite and Päivi Koskinen, for their encouragement. I gratefully acknowledge the Portuguese National Science Foundation, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), for supporting this work with the research grant IF/00846/2013.

References

Abbi, Anvita. 1992. Reduplication in South Asian languages. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
Abbi, Anvita. 2011. Body divisions in Great Andamanese: Possessive classification, the semantics of inherency and grammaticalization. Studies in language 35(4): 739–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Miriam. 1991. Macushi. In Handbook of Amazonian languages 3, ed. Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 23–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alpher, Bary. 1994. Yir-Yiront ideophones. In Sound symbolism, ed. Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John, 161–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alpher, Barry. 2001. Ideophones in interaction with intonation and the expression of new information in some indigenous languages of Australia. In Ideophones, ed. Erhard Voeltz, F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, Christa, 9–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, eds. 1997. Complex predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Amberber, Mengistu. 1996. Transitive alternations, event-types and light verbs . Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Amha, Azeb. 2010. Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited. In Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, ed. Amberber, Mengistu, Baker, Bret, and Harvey, Mark, 259–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armoskaite, Solveiga, and Koskinen, Päivi. 2014. Finnish nominal ideophones as evaluatives. Paper presented at “Structuring sensory imagery: Ideophones across languages & cultures”, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Authier, Gilles. 2013. Grammaire Juhuri, ou Judéo-Tat, langue iranienne des Juifs du Caucase de l'est. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2): 159–219.Google Scholar
Belvin, Robert, and den Dikken, Marcel. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have . Lingua 101(3/4): 151–183.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
van den Berg, René. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Berro, Ane. 2012. Three levels of root insertion in Basque intransitive verbs. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 11(1): 7–21.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Embick, David. 2004. Causative derivations in Hindi. Ms., University of Texas at Austin and University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1997. The possessive of experience in Belhare. Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics 14, ed. Bradley, David, 135–155. Camberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio, and Gallego, Ángel J.. 2014. Reconsidering subextraction: evidence from Spanish. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 3(2): 223–258.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. The reconstruction of Nyulnyulan complex predication. Diachronica 25(2): 186–212.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Joel. 2006. Grammatically marked ideophones in Numbami and Jabêm. Oceanic Linguistics 45(1): 53–63.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagri, Ilhan. 2007. Persian accusative case: A lexicalist approach. Paper presented at Second International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL2). University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Childs, Tucker. 1994. African ideophones. In Sound symbolism, ed. Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John, 178–209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase . In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Restructuring and functional structure. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures 3, ed. Belletti, Adriana, 132–191. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Marybeth. 1995. Where do you feel? Stative verbs and body-part terms in Mainland Southeast Asia. In The grammar of inalienability, ed. Chappell, Hilary and McGregor, William, 529–564. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 1997. The auxiliarization of re ‘say’ in Setswana. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Syntax and Semantics in Africa, 59–70. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2001. Setswana ideophones as uninflected predicative lexemes. In Ideophones, ed. Erhard Voeltz, F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, Christa, 75–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large . Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Delfitto, Denis, and Melloni, Chiara. 2009. Compounds don't come easy. Lingue e Linguaggio 8(1): 75–104.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2002. A diachronic perspective on complex predicates in Indo-Aryan. Paper presented at the Workshop on complex predicates, particles and subevents, Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1977. Discourse redundancy in Hixkaryana. International Journal of American Linguistics 43(3): 176–188.Google Scholar
Dhoorre, Cabdulqaadir Salaad, and Tosco, Mauro. 1998. 111 Somali ideophones. Journal of African Cultural Studies 11(2): 125–156.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1980. Language and linguistic area: Essays by Murray B. Emeneau, selected and introduced by Dil, Anwar S.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2007. A grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–48.Google Scholar
Fedden, O. Sebastian. 2007. A grammar of Mian: a Papuan language of New Guinea . Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Fedden, Sebastian. 2011. A grammar of Mian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fleck, David. 2003. A grammar of Matses . Doctoral dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Harley, Heidi, and Karimi, Simin. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115(10): 1365–1401.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 197–238.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118(2): 190–202.Google Scholar
Franco, Ludovico, Zampieri, Elisa, and Meneghello, Francesca. 2013. Prepositions inside (and at the edge) of words: A view from agrammatism. Language Sciences 40: 95–122.Google Scholar
Franco, Ludovico. 2015. The morpho-syntax of adverbs of the carpone/i type in (old and modern) Italian. Probus 27(2): 271–306.Google Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2012. A note on cognate objects: cognation as doubling. Nordlyd 39(1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, and Massam, Diane. 1994. Lexical/syntactic relations without projections. Linguistic Analysis 23: 175–217.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Non-projecting nouns and the ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15(4): 729–788.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57(2): 47–74.Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik. 2006. A grammar of Yurakaré . Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik. 2010. Middle voice and ideophones, a diachronic connection. The case of Yurakaré. Studies in Language 34(2): 273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1996. Semantic restrictions in Romance causatives and the incorporation approach. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2): 294–313.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2000. Anatomy of a closed word class: Frequency, regularity and productivity of verbs in Kurdish. Paper presented at the 22nd Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Phillips-Universität, Marburg.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Google Scholar
Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1996. Subjects, events, and licensing . Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double-object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. In The syntax of aspect: deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, ed. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Rapoport, Tova, 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. Light verbs as classifiers in Udi. Diachronica 25: 213–241.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason D. 2009. Hyponymous objects and late insertion. Lingua 119(2): 242–262.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1976. Topic E: Simple and compound verbs: Conjugation by auxiliaries in Australian verbal systems. North-east Arnhem Land. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. Dixon, R.M.W., 735–740. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John J., eds. 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirose, Masayoshi. 1981. Japanese and English contrastive lexicology: The role of Japanese “mimetic adverbs” . Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia and Siloni, Tal. 2011. Causatives across components. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3): 657–704.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1992. Catalan (Descriptive Grammars). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hurford, James. 2011. The origins of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2004. Tipi-tapa, tipi-tapa korrika!!! Motion and sound symbolism in Basque. LAUD Series A: General and Theoretical Papers, No. 629.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2015. Basque ideophones from a typological perspective. Ms., University of Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi, Kita, Sotaro, Nagumo, Miho, and Okada, Hiroyuki. 2008. Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109(1): 54–65.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(7): 272–279.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Ideophones in Japhug (Rgyalrong). Anthropological Linguistics 55(3): 256–287.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2014. Revisiting the Persian ezafe construction. A roll-up movement analysis. Lingua 150: 1–24.Google Scholar
Kantartzis, Katerina, Imai, Mutsumi, and Kita, Sotaro. 2011. Japanese sound symbolism facilitates word learning in English speaking children. Cognitive Science 35(3): 575–586.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional. Lexicology 3(2): 273–318.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47(1): 3–31.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2009. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 1–31.Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 2001. Universality and diversity. Ideophones from Baka and Kxoe. In Ideophones, ed. Erhard Voeltz, F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, Christa, 155–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 1998. A grammar of Kambera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2002. Semantically motivated lexical patterns: A study of Dutch and Kambera expressives. Language 78(2): 258–286.Google Scholar
Kratochvíl, František. 2007. A grammar of Abui, a Papuan language of Alor . Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, and Cho, Sungeun. 2003. Temporal adjectives and the structure of possessive DPs. Natural Language Semantics 11(3): 217–247.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 2012. Slap, give a slap, slap a slap: Crosslinguistic diversity in hitting event descriptions. Hand-out of a talk given at Tenth Biennial Conference of the High Desert Linguistics Society, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Lisa. 2011. Possessive with in Germanic: have and the role of P. Syntax 14(4): 355–393.Google Scholar
Loughnane, Robyn. 2009. A grammar of Oksapmin . Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Lundquist, Björn. 2008. Nominalizations and participles in Swedish . Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Franco, Ludovico. 2016. Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 197. doi:10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Savoia, Leonardo M.. 2011a. Grammatical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Savoia, Leonardo M.. 2011b. Reducing ‘case’ to denotational primitives: Nominal inflections in Albanian. Linguistic Variation 11(1): 76–120.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–225.Google Scholar
Mateu, Jaume. 2002. Argument structure: Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface . Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan and Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2013. Non-canonical say in Siberia: Areal and genealogical patterns. Studies in Language 37(2): 356–412.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James. 1994. Tone, intonation, and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. In Sound symbolism, ed. Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John, 115–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb classification in Australian languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2012. The status of the nominal in Persian complex predicates. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(1): 179–216.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 2001. Form and context in Jawoyn place names. In Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages, ed. Simpson, Jane, Nash, David, Laughren, Mary, Austin, Peter, and Alpher, Barry, 367–383. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mihas, Elena I. 2012. Ideophones in Alto Perené (Arawak) from eastern Peru. Studies in Language 36(2): 300–344.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1982. The synchronic and diachronic behavior of plops, squeaks, croaks, and moans. International Journal of American Linguistics 48(1): 49–58.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1975. Borrowed verbs. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 8: 3–30.Google Scholar
Moyne, John Abel. 1974. The structure of verbal constructions in Persian . Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor V. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and Otaina, Galina A.. 2013. A syntax of the Nivkh language: The Amur dialect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, and Tolskaya, Maria. 2001. A grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis B. 1996. Sounds like life: Sound-symbolic grammar, performance, and cognition in Pastaza Quechua. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pāṇini, 1962. The Ashṭādhyāyī. Trans. Srisa Chandra Vasu. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. Lang, Ewald, Maienborn, Claudia, and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David, and Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The syntax of time, ed. Gueron, Jacqueline and Lecarme, Jacqueline, 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 2005. Delocutive verbs, crosslinguistically. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 459–491.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The dimensions of quotation. In Direct compositionality, ed. Barker, Chris and Jacobson, Pauline, 405–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiter, Sabine. 2013. Ideophones in Awetí . Doctoral dissertation, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
Richa, . 2008. Unaccusativity, unergativity and the causative zlternation in Hindi: A minimalist analysis . Doctoral dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Keyser, Samuel J., 113–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2004. A grammar of Mosetén. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. The verbness markers of Mosetén from a typological perspective. In New challenges in typology, ed. Miestamo, Matti and Wälchli, Bernhard, 315–336. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2001. Le statut syntaxique des objets nus en persan. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 96(1): 349–388.Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A (phrasal) affix analysis of the Persian ezafe . Journal of Linguistics 43(3): 605–645.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung. A study of event categorization in an Australian language . Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2001. Ideophone-like characteristics of uninflected predicates in Jaminjung (Australia). In Ideophones, ed. Erhard Voeltz, F. K. and Kilian-Hatz, Christa, 355–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Complex predicates and the functional sequence. Nordlyd 35(1): 47–88.Google Scholar
Torrence, Harold. 2013. A promotion analysis of Wolof clefts. Syntax 16(2): 176–215.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation . Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Events as grammatical objects, ed. Tenny, Carol, and Pustejovsky, James, 239–282. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2011. Causatives in minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vahedi-Langrudi, Mohammad-Mehdi. 1996. The syntax, semantics and argument structure of complex predicates in modern Farsi . Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Vittrant, Alice. 2013. Psycho-collocational expressives in Burmese. In The aesthetics of grammar: Sound and meaning in the languages of mainland southeast Asia, ed. Williams, Jeffrey P., 255–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Sören, and Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2008. Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes, ed. Stolz, Thomas, Bakker, Dik, and Palomo, Rosa Salas, 89–121. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1999. Emotions across language and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zariquiey Biondi, Roberto. 2011. A grammar of Kashibo-Kokataibo . Doctoral dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar