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. 253278
Arnold, J.E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R
(2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering. Language , 76(1), 28–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H
(2008)  Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R . 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balanced Corpus of Estonian
Bartens, R
(1978)  Synteettiset ja analyyttiset rakenteet lapin paikanilmauksissa [Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 166]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H
(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M
(2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language , 86(1), 168–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B
(2009) Contextual cues for particle placement: Multiplicity, motivation, modelling. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Context in construction grammar (pp. 145–191). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, L., & Van der Zee, E
(2005)  Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B
(1986) Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In F.R. Eckman, E.A. Moravcsik, & J.R. Wirth (Eds.), Markedness (pp. 85–106). New York: Plenum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.E., & Ross, J.R
(1975) World order. In R.E. Grossman, J.L. San, & T.J. Vance (Eds.), Chicago linguistic society: Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Coventry, K.R., & Garrod, S.C
(2004)  Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions . New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
de Vega, M., Rodrigo, M.J., Ato, M., Dehn, D.M., & Barquero, B
(2002) How nouns and prepositions fit together: An exploration of the semantics of locative sentences. Discourse Processes , 34(2), 117–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, M., Kasik, R., Metslang, H., Rajandi, H., Ross, K., Saari, H., Tael, K., & Vare, S
(1993)  Eesti keele grammatika II: Süntaks [The grammar of Estonian II: Syntax] . Tallinn: Eesti 
Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut.Google Scholar
(1995)  Eesti keele grammatika I: Morfoloogia [The grammar of Estonian I: Morphology] . Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Erelt, M., Erelt, T., & Ross, K
(2007)  Eesti keele käsiraamat [Handbook of Estonian] . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
Feist, M., & Gentner, D
(2003) Factors involved in the use of in and on. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 390–395). Boston MA: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Glynn, D
(2007) Mapping meaning: Toward a usage-based methodology in cognitive semantics. Unpublished PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google 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: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1995)  Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006)  Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J
(1966)  Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies . The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th
(2003) Grammatical variation in English: A question of ‘structure vs. function’? In G. Rohdenburg, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 155–173). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagège, C
(2010)  Adpositions . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A
(1994)  A performance theory of order and constituency . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A
(1986)  Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klavan, J., Kesküla, K., & Ojava, L
(2011) Synonymy in grammar: the Estonian adessive case and the adposition peal ‘on’. In S. Kittilä, K. Västi, & J. Ylikoski (Eds.), Studies on case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008)  Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, S
(2010) The space of case. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Levin, B
(1993)  English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S
(1991) Paradigm size, possible syncretism, and the use of adpositions with cases in flective languages. In F. Plank (Ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection (pp. 57–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B
(2003) Support for more-support. In G. Rohdenburg, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 251–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morphologically Disambiguated Corpus
Ojutkangas, K
(2008) Mihin suomessa tarvitaan sisä-grammeja? Virittäjä , 112(3), 382–400.Google Scholar
Palmeos, P
(1985)  Eesti keele grammatika II: Kaassõna [The grammar of Estonian II: Adposition]. Tartu: TRÜ trükikoda.Google Scholar
Rannat, R
(1991) Noomeni sünteetiliste ja analüütiliste vormide kasutus [The use of the synthetic and analytic forms of the noun]. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A
(2003) Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In G. Rohdenburgand, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 379–411). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salm, S
(2010) Kaassõnade ‘sees’ ja ‘peal’ ning vastavate kohakäänete kasutust mõjutavad tegurid [The factors influencing the use of Estonian adpositions sees ‘in’ and peal ‘on’ and the corresponding locative cases]. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B
(2010) The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistic perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 141–166). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(1983) How language structures space. In H. Pick, & L.P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vainik, E
(1995)  Eesti keele väliskohakäänete semantika kognitiivse grammatika vaatenurgast [The semantics of Estonian external locative cases from the perspective of Cognitive Grammar]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C
(1991)  Spatial prepositions: A case study from French . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, T
(1997) Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change , 9(1), 81–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S
(2003) A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 8(2), 245–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Haspelmath, Martin
2019. Differential place marking and differential object marking . STUF - Language Typology and Universals 72:3  pp. 313 ff. Crossref logo
Wiemer, Björn, Joanna Wrzesień-Kwiatkowska & Piotr Wyroślak
2020. How morphologically related synonyms come to make up a paradigm. Russian Linguistics 44:3  pp. 231 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.