Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 7–38

Polysemy and synonymy

Corpus method and cognitive theory

| University of Paris VIII

This chapter introduces the field of polysemy and synonymy studies from a Cognitive Linguistic perspective. Firstly, the discussion explains and defines the object of research, showing that the study of semantic relations, traditionally restricted to the description of lexical semantics, needs to be extended to include all formal structures, including morpho-syntax. Secondly, given the theoretical assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, it is argued that quantitative corpus-driven methods are essential for the description of semantic structures. Lastly, the chapter charts the development of Cognitive Semantic research in polysemy and synonymy and demonstrates how the current corpus-driven research in the field is inherently linked to the traditions of radial network analysis and prototype semantics. It is argued that instead of an empirical revolution (as has been suggested in recent commentaries), the current trends in the use of observational data are a natural extension of the Cognitive Semantic research tradition.

Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics, corpus linguistics, polysemy, prototype semantics, quantification, radial network analysis, synonymy
Published online: 6 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.01gly
References
Apresjan, J.D
(1974)  Лексическая Семантика. Синонимические средства языка [Lexical Semantics: Synonymous foundations of language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
(2000)  Systematic lexicography . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A
(2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora , 5, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkins, B
(1994) Analyzing the verbs of seeing: A frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 42–56.
Barthélemy, J.-P
(1991) Similitude, arbres, et typicalité. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Sémantique et cognition: catégories, prototypes, typicalité (pp. 205–224). Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
Bartmiński, J
(2008)  Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics . London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bellavia, E
(1996) The German über . In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 73–107). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F
(1996)  Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic journey along the up-down and front-back dimensions . Tübignen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bondarko, A.V
(1983)  Принципы функциональной грамматики и вопросы аспектологии [Principles of functional grammar and questions of aspectology]. Lenningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
(1991)  Functional grammar: A field approach . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C
(1983a)  The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon . Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar
(1983b) How to be in the know about on the go . Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 19, 64–76.Google Scholar
(1984) The very idea: A case study in polysemy and cross-lexical generalizations. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 20, 21–38.Google Scholar
Bybee, J
(2007)  Frequency of use and the organization of language . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casad, E
(Ed.) (1996)  Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaffin, R
(1992) The concept of a semantic relation. In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organisation (pp. 253–288). 
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cienki, A
(1998) Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics , 9 , 107–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, L., & Kay, P
(1981) Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language , 57, 26–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coșeriu, E
(1980)  Textlinguistik . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(1998) Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics , 9, 151–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Toward a social Cognitive Linguistics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A
(2000) Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computation approaches (pp. 30–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culioli, A
(1990)  Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Opérations et représentations . Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H
(1991)  The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch . Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
(1993) The Dutch spatial preposition “in”: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 27–72). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial preposition op . In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 179–196). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1995) Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions Door and Langs . Cognitive Linguistics , 6, 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Sandra, D., & Rice, S
(1997) Towards an empirical lexical semantics. In
 B. Smieja, & M. Tasch (Eds.), Human contact through language and linguistics (pp. 35–54). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B
(Eds.) (2001)  Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Radden, G
(Eds.) (2002)  Perspectives on prepositions . Tübignen: Max 
Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J
(Eds.) (2003)  Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E
(1994) Radial categories in grammar: The Polish instrumental case. Linguistica Silesiana , 15, 83–94.Google Scholar
(1996) Temporal structuring of events: A study of Polish perfectivizing prefixes. In R. Dirven, & M. Pütz (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 467–490). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1997)  Cognitive Semantics and the Polish dative . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Stadler, L., & Eyrich, C
(Eds.) (1993)  Issues in Cognitive Linguistics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deane, P
(1988) Polysemy and cognition. Lingua , 75, 325–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993a)  Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of ‘over’ and other polysemous prepositions . Duisburg: LAUD.Google Scholar
(1993b)  At, by, to, and past: A study in multimodal image theory. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 19, 112–124.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over . In 
B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 235–284). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Delbeque, N
(1996) Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 249–318). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R
(1994)  Over again: On the role of image–schemas in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The separability of German über: A cognitive approach. In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 109–133). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R
(1994) Cognition and semantic structure: The experiential basis of the semantic structure of verbs of body contact. In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 131–145). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Taylor, J
(1988) The conceptualisation of vertical space in English: The case of tall . In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 379–402). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E
(1982)  The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Vanparys, J
(Eds.) (1995)  Current approaches to the lexicon . Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Divjak, D
(2006) Ways of intending: A corpus-based Cognitive Linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010a)  Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010b) Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality relation in Russian. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 305–331). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th
(2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D
(Ed.) (1991)  Sémantique et cognition: Catégories, prototypes, typicalité . Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
Dunbar, G
(1991)  The cognitive lexicon . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(2001) Toward a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics , 12, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V
(2005) The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics , 41, 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 17, 491–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science , 22, 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C
(1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131.Google Scholar
(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica , 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
(2000) Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computation approaches (pp. 91–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language , 64, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B
(1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbours. In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organisation (pp. 75–102). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fischer, K
(2010) Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 43–61). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(1987) On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics , 5 , 275–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988) Where does prototypicality come from? In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics , 27, 587–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 195–210). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1992) The semantic structure of Dutch over . Leuvense Bijdragen , 81, 205–230.Google Scholar
(1993a) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 223–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993b) Generalised onomasiological salience. In J. Nuyts, & E. Pederson (Eds.), Perspectives on language and conceptualization (Special edition of the Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 8 )(pp. 43–56). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
(1994) Classical definability and the monosemic bias. Rivista di Linguistica , 6, 149–172.Google Scholar
(1995) Representational formats in Cognitive Semantics. Folia Linguistica , 39, 21–41.Google Scholar
(1997)  Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology .
Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1998) The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van 
Langendonck, & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and contrastive studies (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999a) Beer and semantics. In L. De Stadler, & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–55). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999b) Idealist and empiricist tendencies in Cognitive Semantics. In 
T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 163–194). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Lectal data and empirical variation in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interactions (pp. 163–189). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006a)  Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 21–50). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010a)  Theories of lexical semantics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010b) Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 71–102). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P
(1994)  The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Speelman, D
(1999)  Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat . Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(Ed.) (1989)  Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics, 27). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1982) Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language , 6, 23–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005)  Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D
(2009) Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010c) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: An overview of the field. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a) The conceptual profile of the lexeme home: A multifactorial diachronic analysis. In J.E. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (pp. 265–293). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2014b) The social nature of anger: Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual structure. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 69–82). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(Forthcoming)  Mapping meaning: Corpus methods for Cognitive Semantics . 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K
(Eds.) (2010)  Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1991) A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis , 21, 66–96.Google Scholar
(1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 3 , 37–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995)  Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalization: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics , 13, 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th
(1999) Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics , 10, 105–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run . In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming). Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Berlin & New York Mouton de Gruyter
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A
(Eds.) (2006)  Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, St., & Geeraerts, D
(2003) Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 67–92). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics , 3, 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985)  An introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hawkins, B
(1985)  The semantics of English spatial prepositions . Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A
(1986)  Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 271–297). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society , 13, 139–157.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L
(1986)  A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot- . 
Munich: Otto Sanger.Google Scholar
(1990) Radial network of a grammatical category – its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 269–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993)  A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V
(2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics , 20, 367–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, S
(2002)  Antonymy: A corpus-based approach . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D
(1982)  Wortbildung und Semantik . Düsseldorf: Francke.Google Scholar
Kay, P
(1984) The kind of/sort of construction. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 10, 128–137.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language , 75, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses: Computers and the Humanities , 31, 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittay, E., & Lehrer, A
(1981) Semantic fields and the structure of metaphor. Studies in Language , 5, 31–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klavan, J
(2012) Converging and diverging evidence: Corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G
(1990)  Sémantique du prototype: Catégorie et sens lexical . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(1999)  Problèmes de sémantique: La polysémie en questions . Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Krawczak, K
(2014a) Shame and its near-synonyms in English: A multivariate corpus-driven approach to social emotions. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 84–94). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krawczak, KLund University Press
(2014b) Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin. (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (pp. 355–386). Lund: Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I
(2012) A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think . Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics , 48, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, A
(1997) Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics , 8, 291–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1975) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic , 2, 458–508.Google Scholar
(1977) Linguistic gestalts. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society , 13, 236–287.Google Scholar
(1982) Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1987)  Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R
(1982) Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language , 58, 22–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites . 
Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application . 
Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A
(1982)  Wine and conversation . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1990a) Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 207–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990b) Prototype theory and its implication for lexical analyses. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 368–381). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K., & Lehrer, A
(1994) Fields, networks, and vectors. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: A festschrift for John Lyons (pp. 26–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A., & Kittay, E
(Eds.) (1992)  Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M
(1998)  Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: Causative constructions in English . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N
(2011) A usage-based study of Dutch causative constructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B
(1996)  Depth of negation: A cognitive semantic study . Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar
Liamkina, O
(2007) Semantic structure of the German spatial particle über . Journal of Germanic Linguistics , 19, 115–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S
(1983)  A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with up and out. Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar
Lipka, L
(1992)  An outline of English lexicology . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P
(1985)  Linguistische Semantik . Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J
(1968)  Introduction to theoretical linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meex, B
(2001) The spatial and non-spatial sense of the German preposition über . In 
H. Cuyckens, & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.A
(1989) Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of meaning-text linguistic theory. Quaderni di Semantica , 10, 65–102.Google Scholar
Melis, L
(1990)  La voie pronominale: La systématique des tours pronominaux en français moderne . Paris: Duclot.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P
(1997) Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 8, 327–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, L
(2003)  Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, D
(1994) Testing for prototypicality: The Chinese morpheme gong . Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 261–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V., & Clarke, D
(Eds.) (2003)  Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J
(1993) The semantics of giving in Mandarin. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 433–486). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G
(1987) Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 13, 195–206.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paprotté, W., & Dirven, R
(Eds.) (1985)  Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M., & Dirven, R
(Eds.) (1996)  The construal of space in language and thought . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakova, M., Pethő, G., & Rákosi, C
(Eds.) (2007)  The cognitive basis of polysemy: New sources of evidence for theories of word meaning . Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rastier, F
(1987)  Sémantique interprétative . Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(1991)  Sémantique et recherches cognitives . Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(2011)  La mesure et le grain: Sémantique de corpus . Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Rauh, G
(Ed.) (1991)  Approaches to prepositions . Tübignen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C
(Eds.) (2000)  Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, S
(1993)  Far afield in the lexical fields: The English prepositions . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1999) Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: The case of to and for in English. Brain and Language , 68, 268–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, S., Sandra, D., & Vanrespaille, M
(1999) Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time. In M. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural typology and psycholinguistic issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 107–127). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B
(1983)  Cognitive Grammar and the structure of Dutch uit and Polish wy . Linguistic Agency University of Trier: Trier.Google Scholar
(1985) Metaphoric processes in word formation. In W. Paprotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 209–241). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask . In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (pp. 613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1992) Case relations in Cognitive Grammar: Some reflexive uses of the Polish dative. Leuvense Bijdragen , 81, 327–373.Google Scholar
(1994) The structure of the genitive category in Polish. Proceedings of the LAUD International Symposium Language and Space , Duisburg . Republished in Rudzka-Ostyn (2000: Chapter 6).
(1995) Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective (pp. 205–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The Polish dative. In W. van Belle, & W. van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive studies (pp. 341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000)  Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka [Considerations on the category of case]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (1988)  Topics in Cognitive Linguistics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B., & Geiger, R
(Eds.) (1993)  Conceptualizations and mental processing in language . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, J., & Spooren, W
(1996) Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics , 7, 241–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S
(1995) Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics , 6, 89–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J
(1993)  Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin. Die Kategorisierung als Grundprinzip einer differenzierten Bedeutungsbeschreibung . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000)  English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition . 
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–135). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R
(1977) Controlled and automated human information processing, I: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review , 84, 1–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, R
(1988) A short story of down . In W. Hüllen, & R. Schulze (Eds.), Understanding the lexicon: Meaning, sense, and world knowledge in lexical semantics (pp. 395–414). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Getting round to (a)round: Towards the description and analysis of a ‘spatial’ predicate. In G. Rauh (Ed.), Approaches to prepositions (pp. 253–74). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1993) The meaning of (a)round: A study of an English preposition. In A. Geiger, & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 399–432). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) Image schemata and the semantics of off . In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 197–213). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, M
(Ed.) (1994)  Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W
(1977) Controlled and automatic information processing, II: Perception, learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review , 84, 127–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D
(2010) Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A
(2008) Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics , 19, 513–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Empirical cognitive semantics: Some thoughts. In D. Glynn, & 
K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 355–380). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, J.S
(1997)  Константы: Словарь русской культуры [Constants: A dictionary of Russian culture]. Moscow: Shkola Jezyki Russkoj Kul’tury.Google Scholar
Talmy, L
(1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science , 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J
(1988) Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 299–326). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J., & MacLaury, R
(1995)  Language and the cognitive construal of the world . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J
(1989a)  Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(1989b) Possessive genitives in English. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics 27) (pp. 663–686). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics , 7, 21–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M
(2003)  Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition . London & Cambridge (Mss): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsohatzidis, S
(Ed.) (1990)  Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization . 
London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D
(1993) Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Linguistic evidence for polysemy in the mind: A response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra. Cognitive Linguistics , 10, 343–368.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D
(2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1, 225–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V
(2003) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D. Clark (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 95–160). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C
(1986)  L’espace en français . Paris: Seuil. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp. 403–437). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1994) Methodology and analysis of the preposition in . Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J
(1981) Problems of lexical semantics. Lingua , 53, 317–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Victorri, B., & Fuchs, C
(1996)  La polysémie: construction dynamique du sens . Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Vorkachev, S.G
(2004)  Счастье как лингвокультурный концепт [Happiness as a cultural-linguistic concept]. Moscow: Gnozis.Google Scholar
Vorlat, E
(1985) Metaphors and their aptness for trade names in perfumes. In W. Paprotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 263–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
(1985)  Lexicography and conceptual analysis . Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
(1989) Prototypes in semantics and pragmatics: Explicating attitudinal meanings in terms of prototypes. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (pp. 731–769). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1990) Prototypes ‘save’: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp. 347–367). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1996)  Semantics: Primes and universals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th
(2007) Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 265–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S
(2006)  Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 101–126). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C
(Ed.) (1993)  The semantics of prepositions . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J
(2003) Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 24 other publications

Bębeniec, Daria
2024. In search of methodological standards for corpus-based cognitive semantics: The case of Behavioral Profiles. Studia Neophilologica ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fishman, Alon
2020. English similarity predicates construe particular dimensions of similarity. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
Fitzmaurice, Susan, Justyna A. Robinson, Marc Alexander, Iona C. Hine, Seth Mehl & Fraser Dallachy
2017. Reading into the past. In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Gómez Vicente, Lucía
2019. Description, acquisition and teaching of polysemous verbs: The case ofquedar. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 57:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse. Topics in Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2023. The sense of ksénos in Ancient Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Jansegers, Marlies, Clara Vanderschueren & Renata Enghels
2015. The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A behavioral profile analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 26:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
Kekki, Niina & Ilmari Ivaska
2022. The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona
2022. Chapter 5. Contrast and analogy in aspectual distinctions of English and Polish. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona & Alicja Jajko-Siwek
2018. Expressing i think that in Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Krawczak, Karolina, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Marcin Grygiel
2022. Introduction. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liesenfeld, Andreas, Meichun Liu & Chu-Ren Huang
2022. Profiling the Chinese causative construction withrang(讓),shi(使) andling(令) using frame semantic features. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Meili
2023. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile of the Mandarin Chinese temperature termre: a diachronic semasiological approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
MEHL, SETH
2019. Light verb semantics in theInternational Corpus of English: onomasiological variation, identity evidence and degrees of lightness. English Language and Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Mehl, Seth
2021. What we talk about when we talk about corpus frequency: The example of polysemous verbs with light and concrete senses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:1 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
2019. MadSex: collecting a spoken corpus of indirectly elicited sexual concepts. Language Resources and Evaluation 53:1 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Proos, Mariann
2019. Chapter 12. Polysemy of the Estonian perception verb nägema ‘to see’. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Sloane, Mona, Ian René Solano-Kamaiko, Jun Yuan, Aritra Dasgupta & Julia Stoyanovich
2023. Introducing contextual transparency for automated decision systems. Nature Machine Intelligence 5:3 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris & Jeanne Vigneron-Bosbach
2021. Introduction. Syntaxe & Sémantique N° 21:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Takač, Višnja Pavičić & Gabrijela Buljan
2023. Acquisition of English nominal suffix -er by advanced EFL learners: a view from usage-based perspective. ExELL 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Haitao, Toshiyuki Kanamaru & Ke Li
2023. The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Wu, Shuqiong & Yue Ou
2023.  A quantitative study of the polysemy of Mandarin Chinese perception verb kàn ‘look/see’ . Australian Journal of Linguistics 43:3 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Cognitive Semantics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 15], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 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.