Review published In:
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Volume 7
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7] 2009
► pp. 319325
Agard, F. & R. Di Pietro
(1965) The Grammatical Structure of English and Italian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. & S. Kemmer
(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2008) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations. A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences DOI logo; [URL]
Colleman, T. & B. De Clerck
(2009) Caused motion’? The semantics of the English ‘to’-dative and the Dutch ‘aan’-dative. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 5–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corder, P.
(1967) The significance of learners’ erorrs. IRAL, 41, 161–170. [Reprinted in J. C. Richards (Ed.) (1974) Error Analysis (pp. 9–27). London: Longman]Google Scholar
Dirven, R.
(2005) Major strands in cognitive linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J., and Sandra Pena Cervel (Eds.), 69–100. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. & M. Verspoor
(Eds.) (2004) Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Second Revised Edition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza
forthcoming). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska Ed. Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back Berlin/New York Mouton de Gruyter vol. In preparation
Geeraerts, D., S. Grondelaers & P. Bakema
(1994) The Structure of Lexical Variation: Meaning, Naming, and Context. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.Th., B. Hampe & D. Schonefeld
(2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. E. & M. Israel
(1994) Variation and the usage-based model. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (2), Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T-P.
(1990) Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kufner, Ht.
(1962) The Grammatical Structures of English and German. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R.
(1957) Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) A usage-based model. (Chapter 101). In R. W. Langacker, Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (pp. 261–288). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paulussen, H.
(1995) Compiling a trilingual parallel corpus. Contragram, 31, 10–13. Ghent: University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (pp. 225–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Chapter 1: Lexicalization patterns. In L. Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring (pp. 21–146). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar