Article published in:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 12:2 (2020) ► pp. 272314
References

[ p. 311 ]References

Bender, A., & Beller, S.
(2014) Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition, 132, 342–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J.
(2015) The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French, and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 657–696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Non-actual motion in language and experience. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 205–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J.
(2010) The language-specificity of conceptual structure: Path, fictive motion and time relations. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 111–137). Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L.
(2013) The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Caballero, R.
(2009)  form is motion. Dynamic predicates in English architectural discourse. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 277–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphorical motion constructions across specialized genres. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 229–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K.
(2012) The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 643–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
COCA. Corpus of contemporary American English
Clark, H.
(1973) Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(2003) Metonymy and conceptual blending. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 51–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pagán Cánovas, C.
(2009) Understanding timelines: Conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Cognitive Semiotics, 5, 198–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I.
(2014) Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 29–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A.
(1961) Relativity: The special and the general theory. [Translated by Robert W. Lawson.] New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 312 ]
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Baker, C.
(2010) A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C.
(2001) Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge (Massachusetts): The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J.
(1954) The visual perception of objective motion and subjective movement. Psychological Review, 61, 304–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1975) Events are perceivable but time is not. In J. T. Fraser & N. Lawrence (Eds.), The study of time II. New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997a) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
(1997b)  theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huumo, T.
(2013) Many ways of moving along a path: What distinguishes prepositional and postpositional uses of Finnish path adpositions? Lingua, 133, 319–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) The grammar of temporal motion: A cognitive grammar account of motion metaphors of time. Cognitive Linguistics, 28, 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Izutsu, K., & Izutsu, M. N.
(2016) Temporal scenery: Experiential bases for deictic concepts of time in East Asian languages. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Conceptualizations of time (pp. 207–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 313 ]
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N.
(1980) The optic flow field: The foundation of vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 290(1038), 169–179.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
(1994) Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics, 32, 791–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
(2004a) The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004b) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1389–1400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Metaphor, simulation, and fictive motion. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 477–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(1996a) Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996b) Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McGlone, M., & Harding, J.
(1998) Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perspective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 1211–1223.Google Scholar
Moore, K. E.
(2014) The spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Elaborating time in space: The structure and function of space-motion metaphors of time. Language and Cognition, 1–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I.
(1686) Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica. Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, S., Stites, L. J., & Emerson, S. N.
(2017) Crossing the road or crossing the mind: How differently do we move across physical and metaphorical spaces in speech and gesture? In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages (pp. 257–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.
(Eds.) (2004) Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Richardson, D., & Matlock, T.
(2007) The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Available on the FrameNet website (http://​framenet​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu).
[ p. 314 ]
Stickles, E., David, O., Dodge, E., & Hong, J.
(2016) Formalizing contemporary conceptual metaphor theory: A structured repository for metaphor analysis. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 166–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. S.
(2007) Grammar in metaphor: a construction grammar account of metaphoric language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1997) Role and individual interpretations of change predicates. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 116–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000a) Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2017) The targeting system of language. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.Google Scholar
n.d.). More on fictivity. [Handout]
Zinken, J.
(2010) Temporal frames of reference. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition, and space: State of the art and new directions (pp. 479–498). London: Equinox.Google Scholar