Article published in:
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 117144
References
Arppe, A., & Järvikivi, J
(2007) Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 3, 131–159. 
CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H
(2008)  Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A
(2006)  Regression analysis by example . Chichester & New Jersey: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N
(1964) A transformational approach to syntax. In J.A. Fodor, & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language (pp. 211–241). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeMaris, A
(2003)  Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables . Chichester & New Jersey: Wiley.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D
(2010)  Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th
(2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 23–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, Y
(2008)  The concise encyclopedia of statistics . Heidelberg & New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Faraway, J
(2002)  Extending the linear model with R: Generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models . London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica , 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(1987) On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics , 5, 275–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989)  Prospects and problems of prototype theory . Linguistics , 27, 587– 612. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 223–272. CrossrefGoogle 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
(2000) Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition (pp. 79–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P
(1994)  The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G
(2010)  Corpus, cognition and causative constructions . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(In press) Cognitive socio-semantics: The theoretical and analytical role of context in meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics .Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009)  Statistics for Linguistics with R: A practical introduction . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A
(2010) Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In S. Rice, & J. Newman (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp. 73–90). CSLI: Stanford.Google Scholar
Janda, L
(1993)  A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities , 31, 91–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, G
(1990)  Sémantique du prototype : catégorie et sens lexical . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Kudrnáčová, N
(2010) On pragmatic and cognitive processes in meaning variation. Linguistica Silesiana , 31, 55–67.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987)  Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A
(1982)  Wine and conversation . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.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
Levy, J., Bullinaria, J., & Patel, M
(1999) Explorations in the derivation of cooccurrence statistics. South Pacific Journal of Psychology , 10, 99–111.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maindonald, J., & Braun, J
(2003)  Data analysis and graphics using R: An example-based approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marques de Sá, J
(2007)  Applied statistics using SPSS, STATISTICA, MATLAB and R . 
Heidelberg & New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E
(1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 104, 192–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B
(1989) Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask . In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics 27 ) (pp. 613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S
(1995) Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics , 6, 89–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J
(2000)  English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition . 
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment. In D. Glynn, & 
K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–135). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B
(2006)  Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J
(1989)  Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, E
(2009) On prototypicality of dimensional adjectives. In J. Zlatev, M. Andrén, M. Johansson Falck, & C. Lundmark (Eds.), Studies in language and cognition (pp. 111–128). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language , 77, 724–65. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2022. Words, constructions and corpora: Network representations of constructional semantics for Mandarin space particles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2  pp. 209 ff. Crossref logo
Desagulier, Guillaume
2020.  In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics,  pp. 435 ff. Crossref logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1  pp. 27 ff. Crossref logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2017. A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1  pp. 253 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Kokorniak, Iwona & Alicja Jajko-Siwek
2018. Expressing i think that in Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1  pp. 229 ff. Crossref logo
Krawczak, Karolina
2021.  In Give Constructions across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 29],  pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo
Liu, Meili
2022. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile of the Mandarin Chinese temperature term re: a diachronic semasiological approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo
Smith, Chris A.
2018. Diachronic patterns of usage of no doubt in the English Historical Book Collection (EEBO, ECCO and EVANS). ExELL 6:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.