Chapter published in:
Give Constructions across Languages
Edited by Myriam Bouveret
[Constructional Approaches to Language 29] 2021
► pp. 2554
References
Bossong, G.
(1991) Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In D. Kibbee & D. Wanner (Eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics (pp. 143–170). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E. E.
(2009) Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35, 49–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B.
(2016) Light verbs are just regular verbs. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference, Vol. 22.1, (pp. 51–60). University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. M.
(1988) The syntax and semantics of HAVE and its complements. PhD dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
(2001) Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences, 23(4–5), 551–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. M., & Lakoff, G.
(2006) Radial network: Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 109–139). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butt, M.
(2010) The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In M. Amberber, B. Baker, & M. Harvey (Eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure (pp. 48–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2006) The grammar of linguistic metaphors. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 106–122). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dodge, E. K., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Beitel, D. A., Harrington, M., & Sanders, P. E.
(1994) Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: Bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 11, 231–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A.
(1998)  give, HAVE, and take in Slavic. Typological Studies in Language, 36, 249–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1965) A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI, Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D.
(2000) What gives with es gibt? Typological and comparative perspectives on existentials in German, Germanic, and Indo-European. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 12(2), 187–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The metaphor system and its role in grammar. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Vol. 29.2 (pp. 217–242).Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How Europeans give: A two-layered semantic typology based on two parallel corpora. In B. Nolan, G. Rawoens, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Causation, permission, and transfer: Argument realisation in GET, take, PUT, give, and LET verbs (pp. 147–175). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J.
(Ed.) (1997) The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Núñez, R., & Sweetser, E. E.
(2006) With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rangkupan, S.
(2007) The syntax and semantics of Serial Verb Constructions in Thai. Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 193–234.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J.
(1979) The Conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rychlý, P.
(2008) A lexicographer-friendly association score. In P. Sojka & A. Horák (Eds.), Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing (RASLAN 2008) (pp. 6–9). Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J.
(2007) Finding metaphor in frammar and usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stein, G.
(1991) The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern English. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. S.
(2007) Grammar in metaphor: A Construction Grammar account of metaphoric language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
(2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, E., Jackendoff, R., Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M., Snedeker, J., Wiese, H., & Wittenberg, E.
(2014a) The processing and representation of light verb constructions. In A. Bachrach, I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the Argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (p. 61–80). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, E., Paczynski, M., Wiese, H., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G.
(2014b) The difference between “giving a rose” and “giving a kiss”: Sustained neural activity to the light verb construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 73(1), 31–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar