Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Bocian, Edyta
2022. Związki frazeologiczne z komponentem przestrzennym "su" w ujęciu kognitywnym. Próba analizy na materiale języka włoskiego. Acta Neophilologica 2:XXIV  pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Falck, Marlene Johansson & Lacey Okonski
2022. Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (pims): A Cognitive Linguistics Approach to Bridge Theory and Practice. Cognitive Semantics 8:2  pp. 294 ff. DOI logo
Jamrozik, Anja & Dedre Gentner
2015. Well‐Hidden Regularities: Abstract Uses of in and on Retain an Aspect of Their Spatial Meaning. Cognitive Science 39:8  pp. 1881 ff. DOI logo
Pavlović, Tijana Vesić
2016. Conceptual Metaphors with the Source Domain of Insanity in English and Serbian. Romanian Journal of English Studies 13:1  pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
PROOS, MARIANN
2020. Feeling your neighbour: an experimental approach to the polysemy oftundma‘to feel’ in Estonian. Language and Cognition 12:2  pp. 282 ff. DOI logo
Robinson, Justyna A.
2014. Quantifying polysemy in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In Corpus Methods for Semantics [Human Cognitive Processing, 43],  pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
SUMAN, LUHACH & TIWARI GARIMA
2020. EXPLORING POLYSEMY THROUGH PROTOTYPICAL THEORY FOR TEACHING LEGAL ENGLISH IN CONTRACTS. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching 10:4  pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans
2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 may 2024. 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.