Demonstratives and Possessives with Attitude

An intersubjectively-oriented empirical study

HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027246677 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027268822 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
Linking grammatical analyses with ideas about a shareable reality, this book investigates some fascinating ways in which nominal reference is exploited to meet interpersonal and rhetorical goals. It focuses on the use of demonstrative and possessive determiners in Polish discourse and proposes that the phenomenon of deixis be reexamined in the light of linguistic variation. The book illustrates a growing concern with the application of cognitive grammar to the study of situated language use and its social outcomes. What emerges is a new understanding of the role of deictic elements as tools for establishing intersubjective coordination and expressing attitudes.

This book is for anyone actively seeking to understand how linguistic systems reflect human socio-cognitive abilities and in what ways reality is mediated through language.
[Human Cognitive Processing, 51]  2015.  xxii, 226 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
xi–xii
List of figures
xiii–xiv
List of tables
xv–xvi
List of abbreviations
xvii–xviii
Preface
xix–xxii
Chapter 1. Meaning Construction and Nominal Reference
1–28
Chapter 2. Demonstratives – judging distances
29–86
Chapter 3. Possessives – forming groups
87–136
Chapter 4. Case Study: "Solidarni 2010"
137–162
Chapter 5. Demonstratives and possessives in experimentation
163–190
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Discussion
191–206
References
207–218
Author index
219–220
Subject index
221–226
“This detailed, sensitive description of grounding by demonstratives and possessives illuminates their interactive function as well as their role in constructing viewpoints. By exploring the social aspects of their use, it broadens and deepens our understanding of nominal grounding and its treatment in Cognitive Grammar.”
“This timely monograph reinvigorates the study of determiners and offers new interpretive tools. While focused on one language, Polish, it highlights a wide range of interpretive questions relevant in a cross-linguistic context, and tests the results empirically. Rybarczyk’s book proposes a highly effective methodology, and naturally connects cognitive grammar with the study of intersubjectivity and interpersonal attitudes.”
References

References

Ariel, Mira
1988Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 65–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1967 Have and be in English syntax. Language, 43(2), 462–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent
2008On referring and not referring. In Jeanette K. Gundel, & Nancy Hedberg (Eds.), Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 13–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Anan, Yoav, Trope, Yaacov, Liberman, Nira, & Algom, Daniel
2007Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(4), 610–622. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael, & Kemmer, Suzanne
(Eds.) 2000Usage-based models of language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
2008Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2008Emotion talk across corpora. Houndmills / New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, Beatrice
2005Forms of intersubjectivity in infant research and adult treatment. New York: Other Press.Google Scholar
Bendix, Edward H.
1966Componential analysis of general vocabulary: The semantic structure of a set of verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32(2).Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael
1992Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 101, 327–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, George, & Jarrett, Nick
1991What minds have in common is space: Spatial mechanisms serving joint visual attention in infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 55–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 27–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.). 1980The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan
1993Experiencers, possessors, and overlap between Russian dative and u + genitive. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 19, 76–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: A comparative analysis in cognitive grammar. Slavic and East European Journal, 39(1), 73–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Steven J.
2010The chain of being and having in Slavic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1997Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23, 567–598. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2009Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans, & Stéphanie Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 396–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, & Cruse, D. Alan
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Terry
1996Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. In Hilary Chappell, & William McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 383–432). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara
1999How Polish structures space: Prepositions, direction nouns, case and metaphor. In Frederike van der Leek, & Ad Foolen (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 27–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, & Sweetser, Eve
2005Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Viewpoint in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, & Vandelanotte, Lieven
2009Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In Geert Brône, & Jeroen Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 10) (pp. 319–369). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
1997Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deane, Paul D.
1987English possessives, topicality, and the Silverstein Hierarchy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13 (pp. 65–76). California: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
1992Grammar in mind and brain: Explorations in cognitive syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
1981An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57, 626–657. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
1999Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization (Typological studies in language, 42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In Matthew S. Dryer, & Martin Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/41, accessed on 2014-07-02.)Google Scholar
Dirven, René, Wolf, Hans-Georg, & Polzenhagen, Frank
2007Cognitive linguistics and cultural studies. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1203–1240). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard
1999Roles, frames and definitness. In Karen van Hoek, Andrej A. Kibrik, & Leo Noordman (Eds.), Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics. Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, Amsterdam, July 1997 (pp. 53–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, & Wilkins, David
2000In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2006Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 491–534. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, & Green, Melanie
2006Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
(1994 [1985]) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language (2nd edition). Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press [first published by MIT Press]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Methods and generalizations. In Theo Janssen, & Gisela Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 95–127). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, & Turner, Mark
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1975Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1990Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 137–162).
Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte, & Peirsman, Yves
(Eds.) 2010Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W.
1994The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) 2008The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Walking the walk while thinking about the talk: Embodied interpretation of metaphorical narratives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 1–16.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1985Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In John Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, & Spivey, Michael J.
(Eds.) 2007Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Górska, Elżbieta
1999On parts and wholes: A cognitive study of English schematic part terms. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
2008Four arguments for patterns of metaphorical thought. Acta Philologica, 35, 15–31.Google Scholar
2010life is music: A case study of a novel metaphor and its use in discourse. In Barbara Dancygier, & José Sanders (Eds.), English text construction 3/2 (Special issue: Textual choices and discourse genres: Creating meaning through form) (pp. 275–293). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, Joseph
1997Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Gries, Stefan Th., & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2006Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Geeraerts, Dirk, & Speelman, Dirk
2007A case for a cognitive corpus linguistics. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, & Michael J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, Renata
2002Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej [An introduction to linguistic semantics]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1980The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 514–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K., & Hasan, Ruqaiya
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate
2005When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus-minus parameter in image-schema theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 115–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harder, Peter
2009Meaning as input: The instructional perspective. In Vyvyan Evans, & Stéphanie Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 15–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Meaning in mind and society: A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive linguistics. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher
2010Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1978Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croon Helm.Google Scholar
1991On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 405–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997aCognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997bPossession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Song, Kyung-An
2010On the genesis of personal pronouns: Some conceptual sources. Language and Cognition, 2(1), 117–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Dorothy, & Quinn, Naomi
(Eds.) 1987Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
2008The central role of normativity in language and linguistics. In Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, & Esa Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 279–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A.
1993A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Unpacking markedness. In Eugene H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 207–233). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Theo A.J.M.
2002Deictic principles of pronominals, demonstratives and tenses. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (151–193). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Dawn
2010Language, corpora and context: A ‘thrilling’ case study. Presentation at The 5th Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies (IVACS 2010), [http://​www​.slideshare​.net​/nottyknight​/ivacs​-symposium​-2010].
2011The future of multimodal corpora. RBLA, 11(2), 391–415.Google Scholar
Kochańska, Agata
2007A note on the ‘hidden’ interpersonal semantics of referring to third person humans in Polish: A cognitive grammar analysis. Studies in Polish Linguistics, 4, 109–123.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
2000Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán, & Radden, Günter
1998Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P.
1997Angels and devils in hell. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Energeia.Google Scholar
Kubiński, Wojciech
1999Word order in English and Polish: On the statement of linearization patterns in cognitive grammar. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, & Kaburaki, Etsuko
1977Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1974Remarks on this and that . In Charles Fillmore, George Lakoff, & Robin Lakoff (Eds.), Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics 1: XVII, 1–12.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1985Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1988A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995aViewing in cognition and grammar. In Philip W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 153–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995bPossession and possessive constructions. In John R. Taylor, & Robert E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 51–79). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyte. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999aAssessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Theo Janssen, & Gisela Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 13–59). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999bGrammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999cLosing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In Andreas Blank, & Peter Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 147–175). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow, & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2001aDiscourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bDynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002aDeixis and subjectivity. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002bRemarks on the English grounding system. In Frank Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 28–38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Conceptual overlap in reference point constructions. In Masatomo Ukaji, Masayuki Ike-Uchi, & Yoshiki Nishimura (Eds.), Current issues in English linguistics (pp. 87–117). Special Publications of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 2. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2004Grammar as image: The case of voice. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & Alina Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Imagery in language: Festschrift in honour of professor Ronald W. Langacker (pp. 63–114). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2007Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns. In Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg, & Peter Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 171–187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
. (ms). The English auxiliary: A functional approach. Workshop held at the University of Tartu, 1st–3rd June 2008.
Levine, James S.
1980Observations on inalienable possession in Russian. Folia Slavica, 4(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Likert, Rensis
1932A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher
1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977aSemantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1977bSemantics. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majewska, Małgorzata
2005Akty deprecjonujące siebie i innych [‘Acts of belittling oneself and others’]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo
2002Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (1), 1–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, Jean M.
2010The spatial foundation of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2(1), 21–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, Teenie, & Winter, Bodo
2013Experimental semantics. In Bernd Heine, & Heiko Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistics analysis. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Justin L., & Matlock, Teenie
2010The spatial and temporal underpinnings of social distance. Proceedings of Spatial Cognition VII, 19–31.Google Scholar
Matthews, Justin L., & Matlock Teenie
2011Understanding the link between spatial distance and social distance. Social Psychology, 42, 185–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Brian P., & Robinson, Michael D.
2004Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miodunka, Władysław
1974Funkcje zaimków w grupach nominalnych współczesnej polszczyzny mówionej [‘Determiner functions in nominal groups in contemporary spoken Polish’]. Warszawa / Kraków: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Morganti, Francesca, Carassa, Antonella, & Riva, Giuseppe
(Eds.) 2008Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Overgaard, Soren
2009Wittgenstein and other minds: Rethinking subjectivity and intersubjectivity with Wittgenstein, Levinas, and Husserl (Routledge Studies in Twentieth Century Philosophy). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, Massey, Christine, & Gleitman, Lila
2006When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98, B75–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paykin, Katia, & Van Peteghem, Marleen
2003External vs. internal possessor structures and inalienability in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 27, 329–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London / New York : Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter, & Panther, Klaus-Uwe
(Eds.) 2004Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch, & Barbara B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida
1992Case relations in cognitive grammar: Some reflexive uses of the Polish dative. Leuvense Bijdragen, 81, 327–373.Google Scholar
Rybarczyk, Magdalena
2006Subjectively construed means of negotiating the speaker-hearer relation in discourse: A cognitive grammar analysis of selected examples. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
2011 My sister vs. your daughter: Perspective changes and their implicit impact on communication. Anglica, 20, 121–136.Google Scholar
Sambre, Paul
2012Fleshing out language and intersubjectivity: An exploration of Merleau-Ponty’s legacy to cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Semiotics, 4(1), 189–224.Google Scholar
Sammut, Gordon, Daanen, Paul, & Moghaddam, Fathali M.
(Eds.) 2013Understanding the self and others: Explorations in intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek
2009Experimentation. In Dominiek Sandra, Jan-Ola Östman, & Jef Verschueren (Eds.), Cognition and pragmatics (pp. 157–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Brigitte, & Tabakowska, Elżbieta
1992The Polish discourse marker TO in Gombrowicz’s “Ślub” (“The Marriage”) and in its English, German, French and Czech translations. Mainz: Liber Verlag.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
1981Case-marking and the nature of language. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 227–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Chris
1999Grounding, mapping and acts of meaning. In Theo Janssen, & Gisela Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundation, scope, and methodology (pp. 223–255). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Chris, & Rodríguez, Cintia
2008Language and the signifying object: From convention to imagination. In Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, & Esa Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 357–378). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, Elena, Liberman, Nira, & Trope, Yaacov
2010Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Kettler, Sonja, Stroh, Cornelia, & Urdze, Aina
2008Split possession: An areal-linguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in languages of Europe. (Studies in Language Companion Series 101.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, William Graham
1906Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores and morals. Boston: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In Gisela Redeker, & Theo Janssen (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szupryczyńska, Maria
1994Tzw. dativus possessivus we współczesnym języku polskim [‘Dativus possessivus in contemporary Polish’]. BPTJ, 50, 49–69.Google Scholar
Szwedek, Aleksander
1973A note on the relation between the article in English and the word order in Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 2, part I, 213–220; part II, 221–225.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, Elżbieta
1995The concept of radial category and polysemy: A study of the Polish lexical item TO. In Wojciech Smoczyński (Ed.), Analecta Indoeuropea Safarewicz Dictata (pp. 429–441). Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1978Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Volume 4: Syntax (pp. 625–649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1983How language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick, & Linda P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Toward a cognitive semantics (2 volumes). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005Leonard Talmy: A windowing to conceptual structure and language. Part 1: Lexicalisation and typology. Interview by Ibraide Ibarretxe Antunano. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 325–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Leonard Talmy: A windowing onto conceptual structure and language. Part 2: Language and cognition: Past and future. Interview by Ibraide Ibarretxe Antunano. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 253–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007aAttention phenomena. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 264–293). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007bForeword. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, & Michael J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. xi–xxi). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
1992Old problems: Adjectives in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995 [1989]) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1996Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornbury, Scott
2005Beyond the sentence: Introducing discourse analysis. Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Tirassa, Maurizio, & Bosco, Francesca M.
2008On the nature and role of intersubjectivity in human communication. In Francesca Morganti, Antonella Carassa, & Giuseppe Riva (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1996The child’s contribution to culture: A commentary on Toomela. Culture and Psychology, 2, 307–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA / London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2000First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 61–82.Google Scholar
2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Kruger, Ann C., & Ratner, Hilary H.
1993Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 495–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
1989On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 57, 33–65.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Heine, Bernd
(Eds.) 1991aApproaches to grammaticalizalion. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) 1991bApproaches to grammaticalization. Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trope, Yaacov, & Liberman, Nira
2003Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David H.
1980Ethical dative and possessor omission sì, possessor ascension no! Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics 24 (pp. 97–141). University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
1981 [revised electronic edition 2008]. The transitivity-related morphology of tetelcingo nahuatl: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. [http://​www​.sil​.org​/~tuggyd​/Dissert​/DTuggy​-Dissertation​-CG​-nhg​.pdf].
Twardzisz, Piotr
2012 To be and not to have in Polish locationals. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–23.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan
2003The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Belle, William, & Van Hoecke, Willy
(Eds.) 1996The dative. Volume 1: Descriptive studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
1987Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
1991Racism and the press: Critical studies in racism and migration. London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995Elite discourse and the reproduction of racism. In Rita Kirk Whillock, & David Slayden (Eds.), Hate speech (pp. 1–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, Karen
1992Paths through conceptual structure: Constrains on pronominal anaphora. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
1995Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71(2), 310–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
2007Iconicity. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 394–418). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2005Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007Construal and perspectivization. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system. In Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha, & Esa Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 307–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev S.
1978Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda R., Fonseca-Greber, Bonnie, Vickers, Caroline, & Eröz, Betil
2007Multiple empirical approaches to a complex analysis of discourse. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, & Michael J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 120–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1986The meaning of a case: A study of the Polish dative. In Richard D. Brecht, & James S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 386–426). Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
1988The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willemse, Peter
2010A discourse perspective to nominal reference-point constructions. In Elżbieta Tabakowska, Michał Choiński, & Łukasz Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 209–240). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo, & Matlock, Teenie
2013Reasoning about similarity and proximity. Metaphor & Symbol, 28, 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
1996The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In Carmen R. Caldas-Coulthard, & Malcolm Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices (pp. 107–128). London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan
2001Beyond empathy: Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–7), 151–167.Google Scholar
2003Husserl’s phenomenology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhong, Chen-Bo, & Leonardelli, Geoffrey J.
2008Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19, 838–842. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris, & Itkonen, Esa
(Eds.) 2008The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Data and internet sources

Solidarni 2010” by Ewa Stankiewicz 2010 Film Open Group.
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014045766 | Marc record