Article published in:
Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar
Edited by Jiyoung Yoon and Stefan Th. Gries
[Constructional Approaches to Language 19] 2016
► pp. 241262
References
Borg, I., & Groenen, P
(1997) Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.M
(1983) The story of over. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Eddington, D
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T
(2009) The semantic range of the Dutch Double Object Construction. A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K., & Heyvaert, L
(2003) On the so-called ‘middle’ construction in English and Dutch. In S. Granger, J. Lerot, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies (pp. 57–73). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(1998) The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. van Langendonck & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The Dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and constrastive studies (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gower, J.C
(1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties, Biometrics, 27, 857–874. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run . In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Horst, J.M
(1998) Doen in Old and Early Middle Dutch: A comparative approach. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, M. van der Wal, & A. van Leuvensteijn (Eds.), ‘Do’ in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation (pp. 53–64). Munster: Nodus Publicationen.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Verhagen, A
(1994) The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 115–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, J., & Mair, P
(2009) Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software 31(3): 1–30. http://​www​.jstatsoft​.org​/v31​/i03/. (Last access 17.11.2011) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N
(2011) Doe wat je niet laten kan: A usage-based analysis of the Dutch causative constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S
(2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M
(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G.L
(2002) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N.H.J
(2002) The design of the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research (pp. 105–112). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ordelman, R., de Jong, F., van Hessen, A., & Hondorp, H
(2007) TwNC: A multifaceted Dutch News Corpus. ELRA Newsletter 12 (3–4), http://​doc​.utwente​.nl​/68090/ (last access 17.11.2011)Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://​www​.R​-project​.org (last access 17.11.2011)Google Scholar
Rosch, E
(1975) Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The Case of Over . Language, 77(4), 724–765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukker, N
(2005) Causality marking across levels of language structure. University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Venables, W.N., & Ripley, B.D
(2002) Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A., & Kemmer, S
(1997) Interaction and causation: Causative constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 61–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, A
(2010) Exemplars and analogy: Semantic extension in constructional networks. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 201–219). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Ariel, Mira
2019.  Or constructions. Constructions and Frames 11:2  pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo
Wiliński, Jarosław
2017. On the Brink of-Noun vs. On the Verge of-Noun: a Distinctive-Collexeme Analysis. Research in Language 15:4  pp. 425 ff. Crossref logo
徐, 文倩
2022. Review and Prospect of Semantic Research Methods of Synonyms at Home and Abroad. Modern Linguistics 10:03  pp. 366 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.