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. 738
References (221)
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 (24)

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 96:2  pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Guardamagna, Caterina
2024. A corpus-based analysis of ‘vernacular synonyms’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics DOI logo
Wang, Haitao, Toshiyuki Kanamaru & Ke Li
2024. The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:2  pp. 476 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
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
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
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
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. 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
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
Smith, Chris & Jeanne Vigneron-Bosbach
2021. Introduction. Syntaxe & Sémantique N° 21:1  pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Fishman, Alon
2020. English similarity predicates construe particular dimensions of similarity. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3  pp. 453 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
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
Kokorniak, Iwona & Alicja Jajko-Siwek
2018. Expressing i think that in Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1  pp. 229 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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. 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.