Benutzer:Herr-Schlauschlau/Actor-Undergoer-Hierarchie
aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Actor Undergoer
------------------------------------------->
<-------------------------------------------------------
Argument 1. Argument 1. Argument 2. Argument Argument eines Status
von von do'(x,...) von pred'(x,y) von pred'(x,y) pred'(x)
DO
Literatur
unbedingt zu verwenden
- Bickel, B. und Nichols, J. (2009). Case Marking and Alignment. In Malchukov, A. L. und Spencer, A., Hrsg., The Oxford Handbook of Case, chapter 20, pages 304–321. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. und Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Processing Syntax and Morphology. A Neurocognitive Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Payne, T. E. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Van Valin, R. D. (2004). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Van Valin, R. D. (2006). Role and Reference Grammar. In Brown, K., Hrsg., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Band 10, S. 641–650. Elsevier, Amsterdam/Heidelberg, 2. Auflage.
- Van Valin, R. D. (2006). Semantics in Role and Reference Grammar. In Brown, K., Hrsg., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Band 10, S. 158–167. Elsevier, Amsterdam/Heidelberg, 2. Auflage.
- Van Valin, R. D. (ohne Datum). An Overview of Role and Reference Grammar.
Bonus
- Bisang, W. (2006). From meaning to syntax – semantic roles and beyond. In Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., Comrie, B. und Friederici, A. D., Hrsg., Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, S. 191–236. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
- Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., Comrie, B. und Friederici, A. D., Hrsg. (2006). Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Nummer 165 in Trends in Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
- Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. und Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1):19–58.
- Bornkessel, I., Zysset, S., Friederici, A. D., von Cramon, D. Y. und Schlesewsky, M. (2005). Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage, 26(1):221–233.
- Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J. und Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2):172–189.
- Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Nummer 69 in Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Warren, T. und Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85:79–112. (==> Sätze mit Argumenten höher in der Hierarchie werden schneller verarbeitet)
- Warren, T. und Gibson, E. (2005). Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(6):751–767. (==> Sätze mit Argumenten höher in der Hierarchie werden schneller verarbeitet)
- Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Zúñiga, F. (2006). Deixis and Alignment. Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas, Nummer 70 of Typological Studies in Language. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
