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. 341370
References
Abraham, E.
1991Why ‘because’? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text, 11(3), 323–339.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B.
1984Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica, 38(1), 20–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold J., Wasow T., Losongco A., & Ginstrom R.
2000Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 17(1), 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
2008Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
2007Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Collins, P.
1995The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L.
2000Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 687–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Radden, G.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Divjak, D.
2006Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010aStructuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010bCorpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality interaction in Russian. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches (305–330). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Fieller, N.
2014Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (405–442). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K.
2014The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (223–251). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
1994The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D.
2010Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity in dialects. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (21–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G.
2010Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Correspondence analysis Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (443–485). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016aQuantifying polysemy. Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50, 413–448. DOI logoGoogle 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: Re-contextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
(Eds.) 2010Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J.
(Eds.) 2014Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th
2001A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8, 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(Eds.) 2006Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, St., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
2008National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (153–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K.
2005A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In St. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (241–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2012Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D., & S. Lemeshow
2000Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V.
2009What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness . Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K.
2015aEpistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity. Stance strategies in discourse and narration (303–328). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
2015bPolish blog-based corpus. Poznan: UAM.Google 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(2), 455–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I.
2012A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish ‘think’. PSiCL, 48, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D.
2015Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M.
2016A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation: Performativity and descriptivity vis-à-vis boundedness and picturability. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 475–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D.
2019Operationalizing construal. A corpus-based study in cognition and communication constructions. Jezikoslovlje, 20(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N.
2012Comparing constructions: A usage-based analysis of the causative construction with doen in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. Constructions and Frames, 4(1), 76–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N, Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D.
2013Mapping constructional spaces: A contrastive analysis of English and Dutch analytic causatives. Linguistics, 51(4), 825–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F.
1981Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (223–254). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1992The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thompson, & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fundraising text (295–325). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2014R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://​www​.Rproject​.org/
Schiffrin, D.
1985Multiple constraints on discourse options: A quantitative analysis of causal sequences. Discourse Processes, 8, 281–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M.
2002Introduction: Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (1–22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D.
2014Logistic regression A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (487–533). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
2009Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch doen and laten . In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th.
(Eds.) 2006Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsányi, B. M.
2005On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis (1031–1038). Leuven: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
2006Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010The English genitive alternation in a Cognitive Sociolinguistics perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (141–166). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Grammatical variation in British English dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Speelman D., & Geeraerts, D.
2005Inflectional variation in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch: A usage-based account of the adjectival inflection. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation. Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (93–110). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow T.
1997Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, St., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th
2007Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (265–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar