Chapter published in:
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 245282
Arppe, A, Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zschel, A.
2010Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnier, J.
2019explor: Interactive interfaces for results exploration. R package version 0.3.5. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=explorGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
2006Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28, 120–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The later development of an early-emerging system: The curious case of the Polish genitive. Linguistics, 46, 629–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Tomasello, M.
2008Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children’s acquisition of the instrumental construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 533–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2007TIME Magazine corpus (100 million words, 1920s-2000s). Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/time.Google Scholar
2008The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/.Google Scholar
2011Corpus of American soap operas: 100 million words. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/soap/.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E.
1982The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drożdż, G.
2016Perceptual foundations of English temporal and aspectual constructions. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 102–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017The Puzzle of (Un)Countability in English. A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
2004The structure of time language. Meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 33–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. Landau, S., Leese, M., and Stahl, D.
2011Cluster analysis. (5th Ed). Chichester: John Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M.
2012Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of Appraisal in BP’s and Ikea’s social reports. Discourse and Communication, 6, 55–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Building a trustworthy corporate identity: A corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Applied Linguistics, 39, 846–885. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018A step-wise method for annotating appraisal. Functions of Language, 25, 229–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M., & Hommerberg, C.
2015Optimizing transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the quantification of evaluative expressionsCorpora, 10, 315–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
1993Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
1994The structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
1999Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Glynn, D.
2008Lexical fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (77–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014aThe many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (117–144). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bCorrespondence Analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (443–486). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015aThe social nature of anger. Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual structure. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (69–82). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2015bConceptualisation of home in popular Anglo-American texts: A multifactorial diachronic analysis. In J. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (265–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015cThe socio-cultural conceptualisation of femininity. Corpus evidence for cognitive models. In J. Badio, & K. Kosecki (Eds.), Empirical methods in language studies (97–117). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016aQuantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50, 413–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016bSemasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms – New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
(Eds.) 2010Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J.
2014. (Eds.) Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
2019Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M.
2007Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd Ed.). London: Academic. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th
1999Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 105–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2006Corpus-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 (57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Divjak, D.
2009Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (57–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S.
2000De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguïstische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. Doctoral dissertation, Leuven University.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Brysbaert, M.
1996De distributie van het presentatieve er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 1, 280–305.Google Scholar
Heylen, K.
2005A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.). Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
1987Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krawczak. K.
2014Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50, 441–475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (355–386). Lund: Lund University PressGoogle Scholar
2018Reconstructing social emotions across languages and cultures: A multifactorial account of the adjectival profiling of shame in English, French, and Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 455–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D.
2015Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 253–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M.
2016A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation. Folia Linguistica, 50, 475–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2011Conceptual semantics, symbolic grammar, and the day after day construction. In P. Sutcliff, W. Sullivan, & A. Lommel (Eds.), Mechanisms of linguistic behavior (3–24). Houston: LACUS.Google Scholar
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F.
2008FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M., & Hornik, K.
2019cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.1.0.Google Scholar
Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M.
2007Correspondence Analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1–13.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
1989Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask . In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon- Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth. Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective (205–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
2017Linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (435–452). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B.
2003 Be going to versus will/shall. Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics, 31, 130–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2013Statistical guide for partitioning around medoids, section 7.1.1, www​.unesco​.org​/webworld​/idams​/advguide​/Chapt7​_1​_1​.htm.
Vendler, Z.
1957Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
1997Situated embodiment. Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.Google Scholar
2003Polysemy or generality? In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar