References

Abraham, Werner. 1973. The ethic dative in German. In Ferenc Kiefer & Nicolas Ruwet (eds.), Generative grammar in Europe, 1–19. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2503-4_1Suche in Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1999. External possessor and logical subject in Tz’utujil. In Doris L. Payne & Immauel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 451–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.,10.1075/tsl.39.12aisSuche in Google Scholar

Arutjunova, N.D. 1976. Predloženie i ego smysl. Moscow: Nauka.Suche in Google Scholar

Baldi, Philip & Andrea Nuti. 2010. Possession. In Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, vol. 3, 239–387. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215465.239Suche in Google Scholar

Bally, Charles. 1926. L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues Indo-européennes. In Franz Fankhauser & Jakob Jud (eds.), Festschrift Louis Gauchat, 68–78. Aarau: Sauerländer.Suche in Google Scholar

Berman, Ruth. 1982. Dative marking and of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 6. 35–59.Suche in Google Scholar

Blake, Barry J. 1984. Problems for possessor ascension: Some Australian examples. Linguistics 22. 437–453.10.1515/ling.1984.22.4.437Suche in Google Scholar

Borkovskij, V. I. & P. S. Kuznecov 1963 [2003]. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izd. Nauka.Suche in Google Scholar

Brugmann, Karl. 1911. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre nebst Lehre vom Gebrauch der Wortformen der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweite Bearbeitung. Zweiter Band: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Suche in Google Scholar

Christians, Dagmar. to appear. Zur adjektivischen Wiedergabe griechischer adnominaler Genitive bei der slavischen Übersetzung liturgischer Hymnen.Suche in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1985. Indirect object “lowering”. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 39–51.10.3765/bls.v11i0.1900Suche in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2015. Force dynamics and directional change in event lexicalization and argument realization. In Roberto G. de Almeida & Christina Manouilidou (eds.), Cognitive science perspectives on verb representation and processing, 103–129. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_5Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm. 2001. Kinship in grammar. In Irène Baron, Michael Herslund & Finn Sørensen (eds.), Dimensions of possession, 201–225. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.47.12dahSuche in Google Scholar

Danylenko, Andriy I. 2003. Predikaty, vidminky I diatezy v ukraїns’kij movi: istoryčnyj I typologičnyj aspekty. Xarkiv: Oko.Suche in Google Scholar

Danylenko, Andriy. 2006. The Greek accusative vs. new Slavic accusative in the impersonal environment. In Andriy Danylenko (ed.), Slavica et Islamica, 243–265. Munich: Otto Sagner.Suche in Google Scholar

Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44(3). 391–432.10.1162/LING_a_00133Suche in Google Scholar

Delbecque, Nicole & Béatrice Lamiroy. 1996. Towards a typology of the Spanish dative. In William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck (eds.), The dative. Vol. 1: Descriptive studies, 73–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cagral.2.06delSuche in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Der Satz. Band 2. 3. durchgesehene Auflage. Stuttgart: Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-05051-9Suche in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Suche in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Kay O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.10.2307/414531Suche in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 1999a. From interest to ownership: A constructional view of external possessors. In Doris L. Payne & Immauel Barshi (eds.), External possession, 473–504. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39.24friSuche in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam 1999b. The “free” datives in Czech as a linking problem. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats, & Cynthia M. Vakareliyska (eds.), Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 7, 145–166. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2011. The notion of affectedness in expressing interpersonal functions. In Marcin Grygiel & Laura A. Janda (eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework, 121–143. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

García, Erica. 1975. The role of the theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Suche in Google Scholar

Garde, Paul. 1985. O tak nazyvaemyx “simpatičeskix” padežax v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 9(2/3). 181–196.10.1007/BF03380058Suche in Google Scholar

Gianollo, Chiara. 2014. Competing constructions for inalienable possession in the Vulgate Gospels: Translator’s choices and grammatical constraints. Journal of Latin Linguistics 13(1). 93–114.10.1515/joll-2014-0004Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. External possession in a European areal perspective. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39.), 109–135. Amsterdam/Philadelpha: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39.09hasSuche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average Euopean. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals/Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien/La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques. vol. 2, 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110194036Suche in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. A paper.10.1177/2397002215626895Suche in Google Scholar

Havers, Wilhelm. 1911. Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.10.1515/9783111384566Suche in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581908Suche in Google Scholar

Helbig, Gerhard. 1981. Die freien Dative im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 18. 321–332.10.37307/j.2198-2430.1981.06.02Suche in Google Scholar

Hens, Gregor. 1997. Constructional semantics in German: The dative of inaction. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 9(2). 191–219.10.1017/S1040820700002869Suche in Google Scholar

Holvoet, Axel. 2011. Beyond external possession: Genitive and dative with locational nouns in Latvian. Baltic Linguistics 2. 79–107.10.32798/bl.427Suche in Google Scholar

Huumo, Tuomas & Jaakko Leino. 2012. Discontinuous constituents or independent constructions? The case of the Finnish “split genitive”. Constructions and Frames 4(1). 56–75.10.1075/cf.4.1.03huuSuche in Google Scholar

Isačenko, Alexander V. 1965. Das syntaktische Verhältnis der Beziehungen von Körperteilen im Deutschen. Studia Grammatica 5. 7–27.Suche in Google Scholar

Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva. 1966–1969. The syntactical distribution of the Cheremis genitive. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 146). Vols.1, 2. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.10.33339/fuf.120118Suche in Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Kerevičienė, Jurgita. 2004. External possession in Lithuanian. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 50. 1–9.Suche in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2001. Internal and external possessors. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Reible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, Vol. 2, 970–978. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110171549.2Suche in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard & Martin Haspelmath. 1997. Les constructions à possesseur externe dans les langues de l’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et Valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 525–606. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110804485.525Suche in Google Scholar

Krys’ko, Vadim B. 2006. Istoričeskij sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Objekt i perexodnost’. 2-e izdanie, ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe. Moskva:Azbukovnik. [Historical syntax of Russian. Object and transitivity].Suche in Google Scholar

Kučanda, Dubravko. 1996. What is the dative of possession? Suvremena lingvistika (41–42) 22(1–2). 319–332.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 627–672.Suche in Google Scholar

Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2003. Grammaticalization and external possessor structures in Romance and Germanic languages. In Martine Coene & Yves d’Hulst (eds.), From NP to DP. 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases, 257–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.56.15lamSuche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1–38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Leclère, Christian. 1976. Datifs syntaxiques et datif éthique. In Jean-Claude Chevalier & Maurice Gross (eds.), Méthodes en Grammaire Française. Paris: Klincksieck.Suche in Google Scholar

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera 2006. German possessor datives: Raised and affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9. 101–142.10.1007/s10828-006-9001-6Suche in Google Scholar

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera & Gabriele Diewald 2013. Explaining case variation in German inalienable possession constructions. Tampa Papers in Linguistics IV. 31–43.10.3765/bls.v40i0.3145Suche in Google Scholar

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera & Gabriele Diewald. 2014. The pragmatics and syntax of German inalienable possession constructions. Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 40). 289–313.10.3765/bls.v40i0.3145Suche in Google Scholar

Levine, J. 1986. Remarks on the pragmatics of the “inalienable Dative” in Russian. Russian Language Journal 40(135). 11–24.Suche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin & Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2000. Unfolding of situation perspectives as a typological characteristic of languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 53(1). 71–79.10.1524/stuf.2000.53.1.71Suche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin & Elisabeth Verhoeven. 2004. Direkte und indirekte Partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. 2nd edition. (Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 13). Erfurt: Universität Erfurt. Downloadable at http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/ ASSidUE13.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Lødrup, Helge. 2009. External and internal possessors with body part nouns: The case of Norwegian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 221–250.Suche in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Studies in ditransitive constructions. A comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110220377Suche in Google Scholar

Merlier, Octave. 1931. Le remplacement du datif par le génitif en grec moderne. Bulletin de correspondance héllenique 55. 207–228.10.3406/bch.1931.2861Suche in Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. Diathesen und Satzstruktur im Tschuktschischen. In Ronald Lötzsch (ed.), Satzstruktur und Genus verbi, 181–211. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.10.1515/9783112709696-014Suche in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Niclot, Domenico. 2014. From semantic roles to evaluative markers: The dative and affected possessors. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles. 271–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.106.09nicSuche in Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 2001. The Hungarian external possessor in a European perspective. In Cornelius Hasselblatt & Rogier Blokland (eds.), Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts. Proceedings of the Symposium at the University of Groningen, November 22–24, 2001. (Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2), 272–285. Maastricht: Shaker.Suche in Google Scholar

Paul, Peter. 1987. Dependent or not? Drawing a line in verb valency. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7. 321–332.10.1080/07268608708599374Suche in Google Scholar

Paykin, Katia & Marleen Van Peteghem. 2002. External vs. internal possessor structures and inalienability in Russian. Russian Linguistics 27. 329–348.10.1023/A:1027373010332Suche in Google Scholar

Payne, Doris L. & Immanuel Barshi. 1999. External possession. What, where, how and why. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 3–29. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39.03paySuche in Google Scholar

Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199270927.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Podlesskaya, Vera I. & Ekaterina V. Rakhilina. 1999. External possession, reflexivization and body parts in Russian. In Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 39), 505–522. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.39.25podSuche in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Applicative constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/109, Accessed on 2015-03-11.)Suche in Google Scholar

Popov, Alexander V. 1881. Sintaksičeskie issledovanija. Voronezh: Syntactic Investigations.Suche in Google Scholar

Pravdin, A. B. 1956. Datel’nyj priglagol’nyj v staroslavjanskom i drevnerusskom jazykax, Učenye zapiski instituta slavjanovedenija XIII, 3–120.Suche in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Roldán, Mercedes. 1972. Concerning Spanish datives and possessives. Language Sciences 21. 27–32.Suche in Google Scholar

Rowlands, Evan Colyn. 1969. Yoruba. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton.Suche in Google Scholar

Seržant, Ilja A. 2013. The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects. In Ilja A. Seržant & L. Kulikov (eds.), The diachrony of non-canonical subjects. SLCS 140, 313–360. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.140.14serSuche in Google Scholar

Seržant, Ilja A. & Valgerður Bjarnadóttir. 2014. Verbalization and non-canonical case marking of some irregular verbs in *-ē- in Baltic and Russian. In Artūras Judžentis, Tatyana Civjan & Maria Zavyalova (eds.), Balai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankritos. Vilnius: Versmės. [Proceedings of the international conference, dedicated to the academian Vladimir Toporov, The Balts and Slavs: Intersections of Spiritual Cultures.], 218–242. Vilnius: Versmės.Suche in Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives and adversative passives. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20. 461–486.10.3765/bls.v20i1.1438Suche in Google Scholar

Sieg, Emil & Wilhelm Siegling. 1949. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B, Heft 1: Die Udānālaṅkāra-Fragmente. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Suche in Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2008. Split possession. (Studies in Language Companion Series 101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.101Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2Suche in Google Scholar

Tuggy, David. 1980. Ethical dative and possessor omission si, possessor ascension no! Working Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 24. 97–141.10.31356/silwp.vol24.03Suche in Google Scholar

Van Hoecke, Willy 1998: The Latin dative. In William van Belle & Willy van Langendonck (eds.), The dative. Vol. 1. 3–38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cagral.2.04hoeSuche in Google Scholar

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Maria-Louise Zubizarreta. 1992. The definit determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 595–652.Suche in Google Scholar

Vondrák, Wenzel. 1928. Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik. II. Band. Formenlehre und Syntax. Zweite Aufl. Neubearbeitet von Dr. O. Grünenthal. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Suche in Google Scholar

Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Suche in Google Scholar

Wegener, Heide. 1990. Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus? In Gisbert Fanselow & Sascha W. Felix (eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 39), 70–103. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Suche in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. The meaning of a case: A study of the Polish dative. In Richard D. Brecht & James S. Levine (eds.), Case in Slavic, 386–426. Columbus/OH: Slavica.Suche in Google Scholar

Forthcoming issuesIn preparation:Urum and Pontic Greek: Languages and communitiesConcha Höfler, Stefanie Böhm, Konstanze Jungbluth & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.)Nominalization: A view from Northwest AmazoniaSimon Overall & Kasia Wojtylak (eds.)Word formation: Language contact, language contrast and language comparisonMarcus Callies & Christel Stolz (eds.)Suche in Google Scholar