Article in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp. 223242
References
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43 (4), 640–651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., & Sagvari, B.
(2018) Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (1), 121–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F.
(2000) Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Lingusitics, 21 (4), 553–571. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C.
(1985) Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P.
(1967) The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguisitics, 5 (1–4), 161–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H.
(2002) Metonymy in prepositions. In H. Chyckens & R. Günter (Eds.), Perspectives on Prepositions (pp. 257–266). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danesi, M.
(2003) Second Language Teaching: A View from the Right Side of the Brain. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Conceptual errors in second-language learning. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 231–256). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
(2010) From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lecical concepts of in, on and at. In E. Vyvyan & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and the New Directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Galantomos, I.
(2018) Gender and proficiency effects on metaphore use among Greek learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 61–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2015) Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. S. Divjak, Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin/Bosten: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M.
(2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 7–25). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E.
(2002) The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81 (1–3), 205–223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphore We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18 (1), 2–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
(1996) Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50 (3), 225–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2001a) Metaphoric competence: A possible language learning strength of students with holistic cognitive style?. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 459–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001b) The uses of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas studetns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (3), 333–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Metaphoric competence in the first and second language. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Low, G.
(2006) Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27 (2), 268–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J.
(2011) Difficulities in metaphore comprehension faced by international studetns whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32 (4), 408–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lu, H., & Wei, X.
(2019) Structuring polysemy in English learners’ dictionaries: A prototype theory-based model. International Journal of Lexicography, 32 (1), 20–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michl, D.
(2019) Metonymies are more literal than metaphors: Evidence from ratings of German idioms. Language and Cognition, 11 (1), 98–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S.
(1996) Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven, The Construal of Space in Language and Thought (pp. 135–167). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
(1975) Family resemblences: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D.
(2010) Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28 (3), 547–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swan, M.
(1985) A critical look at the communicative approach II. ELTJ, 39 (2), 76–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A.
(2012) Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence. New York and London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle 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 Prepositios: Spatial Senses, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., Muller, C., & Ho, V.
(2011) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (1), 181–206.Google Scholar
Xu, H., & Lou, Y.
(2015) Treatment of the prepositions ‘to’ in English learners’ dictionaries: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Lexicography, 28 (2), 207–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar