Aurnague, M.
This volume. Implicit landmarks and opposite polarities in French motion predicates.
Bowerman, M.
1996Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (385–436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S.
2003Space under construction: Language-specific categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (387–427). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Vespoor, M.
2004Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Second revised edition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garai, K., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
2002From X to Y: The ‘complete path’ construction in Basque. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication, 23, 289–311.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S.
1965Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT. Cambridge: Mass.
Ihara, H., & Fujita, I.
2000A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of the goal -ni over the source -kara. In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Construction in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (123–140). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
1987‘Source’ vs. ‘goal’: A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of case (122–146). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1991Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A.
2012Semantic granularity of placement and removal expressions in Polish. In A. Kopecka & B. Narasimhan (Eds.), Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective (327–346). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Carey, S.
2014Twelve-month-old infants’ encoding of goal and source paths in agentive and non-agentive motion events. Language Learning and Development, 11, 152–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., & Landau, B.
2005Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakusta, L., Muentener, P., Petrillo, L., Mullanaphy, N., & Muniz, L.
2017Does making something move matter? Representations of goals and sources in motion events with causal sources. Cognitive Science, 41(3), 814–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lester, N. A.
2015Linguistic input overrides conceptual biases: When goals don’t matter. Cognitive Science, 1308–1313.Google Scholar
Nikitina, T.
2009Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47, 1113–1141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A.
2010Source-goal asymmetries in motion event representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34, 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, Z., & Zheng, M.
2007Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
2005Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer & W. Herlofsky (Eds.), Outside-in, inside out: Iconicity in language and literature (307–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, J.
This volume. Source-Goal asymmetry in Standard Chinese. A comparative study of spontaneous and caused motion events.
Stathi, K.
2017Granularity effects in event descriptions: A cross-linguistic study. Poster presented at the workshop ‘Event Representations in Brain, Language, and Development’, Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 29 October 2017.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rohde, A.
2004The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (249–267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions (235–287). New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2000Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tutton, M.
2013Granularity, space, and motion-framed location. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space (149–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wnuk, E.
2016Semantic specificity of perception verbs in Maniq. Ph. D. Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Wolff, P.
2003Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zheng, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
2002Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children express motion events across cultures. Cognition, 85, 145–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar