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.
Apresjan, J.D. (1974). Лексическая Семантика. Синонимические средства языка [Lexical Semantics: Synonymous foundations of language]. Moscow: Nauka.
Apresjan, J.D. (2000). Systematic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Bartmiński, J. (2008). Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics. London: Equinox.
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.
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic journey along the up-down and front-back dimensions. Tübignen: Gunter Narr.
Bondarko, A.V. (1983). Принципы функциональной грамматики и вопросы аспектологии [Principles of functional grammar and questions of aspectology]. Lenningrad: Nauka.
Brugman, C. (1983a). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Trier: LAUT.
Brugman, C. (1983b). How to be in the know about on the go. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 19, 64–76.
Brugman, C. (1984). The very idea: A case study in polysemy and cross-lexical generalizations. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 20, 21–38.
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Casad, E. (Ed.). (1996). Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Cienki, A. (1998). Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics,
9
, 107–150.
Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57, 26–44.
Coșeriu, E. (1980). Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Croft, W. (1998). Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 151–173.
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social Cognitive Linguistics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Opérations et représentations. Paris: Ophrys.
Cuyckens, H. (1991). The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.
Cuyckens, H. (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.
Cuyckens, H. (1994). Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial preposition op. In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 179–196). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Cuyckens, H. (1995). Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions Door and Langs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 183–207.
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.
Cuyckens, H., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (2002). Perspectives on prepositions. Tübignen: Max Niemeyer.
Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2003). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dąbrowska, E. (1994). Radial categories in grammar: The Polish instrumental case. Linguistica Silesiana, 15, 83–94.
Dąbrowska, E. (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.
Dąbrowska, E. (1997). Cognitive Semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Stadler, L., & Eyrich, C. (Eds.). (1993). Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deane, P. (1988). Polysemy and cognition. Lingua, 75, 325–361.
Deane, P. (1993a). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of ‘over’ and other polysemous prepositions. Duisburg: LAUD.
Deane, P. (1993b). At, by, to, and past: A study in multimodal image theory. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 19, 112–124.
Deane, P. (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.
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.
Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: On the role of image–schemas in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351–380.
Dewell, R. (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.
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.
Dirven, R., & Vanparys, J. (Eds.). (1995). Current approaches to the lexicon. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
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.
Divjak, D. (2010a). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Divjak, D. (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.
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 23–60.
Dubois, D. (Ed.). (1991). Sémantique et cognition: Catégories, prototypes, typicalité. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Dunbar, G. (1991). The cognitive lexicon. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Dunbar, G. (2001). Toward a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 1–14.
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 33–75.
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 491–534.
Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131.
Fillmore, C. (1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
Fillmore, C. (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.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.
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.
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.
Geeraerts, D. (1987). On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics,
5
, 275–291.
Geeraerts, D. (1988). Where does prototypicality come from? In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics, 27, 587–612.
Geeraerts, D. (1990). The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 195–210). London: Routledge.
Geeraerts, D. (1992). The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen, 81, 205–230.
Geeraerts, D. (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.
Geeraerts, D. (1994). Classical definability and the monosemic bias. Rivista di Linguistica, 6, 149–172.
Geeraerts, D. (1995). Representational formats in Cognitive Semantics. Folia Linguistica, 39, 21–41.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, D. (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.
Geeraerts, D. (1999a). Beer and semantics. In L. De Stadler, & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–55). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (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.
Geeraerts, D. (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.
Geeraerts, D. (2006a). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (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.
Geeraerts, D. (2010a). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (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.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Speelman, D. (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
Geeraerts, D. (Ed.) (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics, 27). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, D. (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.
Glynn, D. (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.
Glynn, D. (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.
Glynn, D. (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.
Glynn, D. (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.
Glynn, D. (Forthcoming). Mapping meaning: Corpus methods for Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.) (2010). Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A. (1991). A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis, 21, 66–96.
Goldberg, A. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics,
3
, 37–74.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. London: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2002). Surface generalization: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356.
Gries, St. Th. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 105–145.
Gries, St. Th. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.
Gries, St. Th. (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.
Gries, St. Th. (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.
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.
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 37–81.
Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hawkins, B. (1985). The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Trier: LAUT.
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157.
Janda, L. (1986). A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot-. Munich: Otto Sanger.
Janda, L. (1990). Radial network of a grammatical category – its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 269–288.
Janda, L. (1993). A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based approach. London: Routledge.
Kastovsky, D. (1982). Wortbildung und Semantik. Düsseldorf: Francke.
Kay, P. (1984). The kind of/sort of construction. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 128–137.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33.
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses: Computers and the Humanities, 31, 91–113.
Klavan, J. (2012). Converging and diverging evidence: Corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tartu.
Kleiber, G. (1990). Sémantique du prototype: Catégorie et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Kleiber, G. (1999). Problèmes de sémantique: La polysémie en questions. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
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.
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:
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. (2012). A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 48, 439–472.
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 291–325.
Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508.
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 13, 236–287.
Lakoff, G. (1982). Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1982). Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language, 58, 22–80.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lehrer, A. (1982). Wine and conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lehrer, A. (1990a). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 207–246.
Lehrer, A. (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.
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.
Lehrer, A., & Kittay, E. (Eds.). (1992). Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mel’čuk, I.A. (1989). Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of meaning-text linguistic theory. Quaderni di Semantica, 10, 65–102.
Melis, L. (1990). La voie pronominale: La systématique des tours pronominaux en français moderne. Paris: Duclot.
Morgan, P. (1997). Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 327–358.
Murphy, L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, D. (1994). Testing for prototypicality: The Chinese morpheme gong. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 261–280.
Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V., & Clarke, D. (Eds.). (2003). Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987). Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 195–206.
Pütz, M., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1996). The construal of space in language and thought. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Rastier, F. (1987). Sémantique interprétative. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Rastier, F. (1991). Sémantique et recherches cognitives. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Rastier, F. (2011). La mesure et le grain: Sémantique de corpus. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Rauh, G. (Ed.). (1991). Approaches to prepositions. Tübignen: Gunter Narr.
Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (Eds.). (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rice, S. (1993). Far afield in the lexical fields: The English prepositions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Rice, S. (1999). Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: The case of to and for in English. Brain and Language, 68, 268–276.
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.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1983). Cognitive Grammar and the structure of Dutch uit and Polish wy. Linguistic Agency University of Trier: Trier.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (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.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (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.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1992). Case relations in Cognitive Grammar: Some reflexive uses of the Polish dative. Leuvense Bijdragen, 81, 327–373.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (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).
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (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.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (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.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2000). Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka [Considerations on the category of case]. Kraków: Universitas.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B., & Geiger, R. (Eds.). (1993). Conceptualizations and mental processing in language. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sanders, J., & Spooren, W. (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 241–264.
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.
Schmid, H.-J. (1993). Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin. Die Kategorisierung als Grundprinzip einer differenziertenBedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmid, H.-J. (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.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automated human information processing, I: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
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.
Schulze, R. (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.
Schulze, R. (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.
Schulze, R. (1994). Image schemata and the semantics of off. In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 197–213). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing, II: Perception, learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
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.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 513–531.
Stefanowitsch, A. (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.
Stepanov, J.S. (1997). Константы: Словарь русской культуры [Constants: A dictionary of Russian culture]. Moscow: Shkola Jezyki Russkoj Kul’tury.
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.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.
Taylor, J., & MacLaury, R. (1995). Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. (1989a). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J. (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.
Taylor, J. (1996). On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 21–34.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. London & Cambridge (Mss): Harvard University Press.
Tsohatzidis, S. (Ed.). (1990). Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization. London: Routledge.
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 273–290.
Tuggy, D. (1999). Linguistic evidence for polysemy in the mind: A response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 343–368.
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.
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.
Vandeloise, C. (1986). L’espace en français. Paris: Seuil.
Vandeloise, C. (1990). Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp. 403–437). London: Routledge.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analysis of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 157–184.
Verschueren, J. (1981). Problems of lexical semantics. Lingua, 53, 317–351.
Victorri, B., & Fuchs, C. (1996). La polysémie: construction dynamique du sens. Paris: Hermès.
Vorkachev, S.G. (2004). Счастье как лингвокультурный концепт [Happiness as a cultural-linguistic concept]. Moscow: Gnozis.
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.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Wierzbicka, A. (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.
Wierzbicka, A. (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.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (Ed.). (1993). The semantics of prepositions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2020. English similarity predicates construe particular dimensions of similarity. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 453 ff.
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.
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.
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse. Topics in Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
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.
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.
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
2019. MadSex: collecting a spoken corpus of indirectly elicited sexual concepts. Language Resources and Evaluation 53:1 ► pp. 191 ff.
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.