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. Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
PROOS, MARIANN
2020. Feeling your neighbour: an experimental approach to the polysemy of tundma ‘to feel’ in Estonian. Language and Cognition 12:2  pp. 282 ff. Crossref logo
Robinson, Justyna A.
2014.  In Corpus Methods for Semantics [Human Cognitive Processing, 43],  pp. 87 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans
2003.  In The Semantics of English Prepositions, Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 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.