Article published in:
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 2354
References
Austin, J.L
1962How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P
2007Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31, 569–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W
1994Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N
1965Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M
1968The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M
2001The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G
1985Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A
1983The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I
1976Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E.V.M., & Tomasello, M
2013The attention-grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 457–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, T
1995Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In E. Contini-Morava & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (245–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1990Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1997Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001aDiscourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bTopic, subject, and possessor. In H. Gram Simonsen & R. Theil Endresen (Eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and constructional perspectives (11–48). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 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
2012Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 555–599. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski, & H. Sorva (Eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives (17–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, C.N
1997On zero anaphora. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón (275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.R
1970On declarative sentences. In R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (222–272). Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R
1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
1988The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (165–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A
2002‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Hoek, K
1995Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Backwards anaphora as a constructional category. Functions of Language, 4, 47–82.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Kochańska, Agata
2021. A grammatical construction in the service of interpersonal distance regulation. The case of the Polish directive infinitive construction. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Langacker, Ronald W.
2020. Trees, assemblies, chains, and windows. Constructions and Frames 12:1  pp. 8 ff. Crossref logo
Möttönen, Tapani
2019.  In Normativity in Language and Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 209],  pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo
Podhorodecka, Joanna
2022. Review of Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (2021). New York and London: Routledge, pp. 772. Prace Językoznawcze 24:1  pp. 277 ff. Crossref logo
Zhan, Hongwei
2020. Book review: Christopher Hart (ed.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse: From Poetics to Politics. Discourse Studies 22:2  pp. 247 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.