To be specified in:
A Cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions: Intertwining networks
Maria Brenda and Jolanta Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska
[Human Cognitive Processing 74] 2022
► pp. 229240
References
Aggis, T.
1986Lokale Präpositionen im Deutschen und ihre griechischen Entsprechungen. Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. J. & R. Shuy
(Eds 1973New ways of analysing variation in English. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2003Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (207–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beavers, J.
2011On affectedness. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227334439 .
Bellavia, E.
1996The German über . In Pütz, M. & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (73–107). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bennet, D. C.
1975Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Berezina, E. N.
2008Kontseptualizatsija prostranstva: predlogi against, opposite v sovremiennom anglijskom jazyke i ikh russkije sootvetstvija. [Oryg. Березина Е.Н. Концептуализация пространства: предлоги against, opposite в современном английском языке и их русские соответствия.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Moscow: Russian Academy of Science [Москва: Pоссийская Aкадемия Наук]. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/kontseptualizatsiya-prostranstva-predlogi-against-opposite-v-sovremennom-angliiskom-yazyke-i.
Bierwiaczonek, B.
2013Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bierwisch M. & E. Lang
(Eds 1987aGrammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven. Studia grammatica 26, 27. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & E. Lang
(Eds 1987bSemantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (Studia grammatica). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
(Eds 1989Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation. Berlin: Springer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bluszcz, A.
1987Relacje przestrzenne w polskich, czeskich i słowackich konstrukcjach z wyrażeniami przyimkowymi. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
2001aDoes language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bHow does our language shape the way we think. Retrieved from: https://www.edge.org/conversation/lera_boroditsky-how-does-our-language-shape-the-way-we-think .
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Phillips, W.
2003Sex, syntax and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (61–78). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Borozdina, I. S.
2003Semantika prostranstvennykh predlogov: na matieriale anglijskogo i russkogo jazykov. [Oryg. Бороздина И.С. Семантика пространственных предлогов: На материале английского и русского языков.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Курск: Pоссийская Aкадемия Наук . Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/semantika-prostranstvennykh-predlogov-na-materiale-angliiskogo-i-russkogo-yazykov .
Brecht, R. D., & Levine, J. S.
[1986] 2016Case in Slavic. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Brenda, M.
2017A cognitive perspective on the semantics of near. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1, 121–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
[1981] 1988The Story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Chernyshev A. B.
2010Kognitivnoe modelirovanije semantiki prostranstvennykh i vremennykh neproizvodnykh predlogov s obshtshim znachenijem ’dvizhenije k konechnomu objektu’: na matieriale anglijskogo i russkogo jazykov. [Oryg. Чернышев А.Б. Когнитивное моделирование семантики пространственных и временных непроизводных предлогов с общим значением "движение к конечному объекту": на материале английского и русского языков.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Moscow: Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/kognitivnoe-modelirovanie-semantiki-prostranstvennykh-i-vremennykh-neproizvodnykh-predlogov .
Chłopicki, W., Pawelec, A., & A. Pokojska
(Eds 2007Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska (255–272). Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. J.
1989Spatial cognition and semantics of prepositions in English, Polish, and Russian. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998STRAIGHT: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics 9–2, 107–149.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
1996Communities, commonalities, and communication. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (324–355). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
1999Domains and image schemas. Cognitive linguistics 10–11, 1–31.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. S.
1968A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions. Cambridge: Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C.
2004Saying, seeing, and acting : The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craig, C.
(Ed 1986Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A. D.
[2000] 2006Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy. Theoretical and computational approaches (30–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H.
1993The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (27–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B.
1997How Polish structures space: Prepositions, direction nouns, case, and metaphor. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (28–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, L.
2013Debiasing semantic analysis: the case of the English preposition to . Language Sciences 37, 122–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S.
2013A sociolinguistic analysis of the German alternation between bis an and bis zu constructions. Belgium, Europe: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F.
2017The family of German dative constructions. In P. Pérez-Sobrino, F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & A. Luzondo (Eds.), Constructing Families of Constructions. (205–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R. B.
1994Over again: Image-schema transformation in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5, 351–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
1989Cognitive perspective on complementation. In D. Jespers, W. Klooster, Y. Putseys, & P. Seuren (Eds.), Sentential complementation and the lexicon. Studies in honor of Wim de Geest (113–139). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & R. Pörings
(Eds 2003Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D.
1991Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Langauge 67 (3), 547–619. Retreived from: http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/syntax-circle/syntax-group/dowty91.pdf . CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drosdowski, G., Köster, R., Müller, W., & W. Scholze-Stubenrecht
(Eds 1994Die Grammatik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duffley, P.
2003The gerund and the to‑infinitive as subject. Journal of English Linguistics 31–4, 324–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Verbs of liking with the infinitive and the gerund. English Studies 4, 358–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007A natural-language semantics approach to infinitival and gerund-participial complementation in English. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Studies 22, 55–67.Google Scholar
2009Complementation with verbs of choice in English. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54–1, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, P., & Fisher, R.
2005Verb+to+infinitive vs. verb+to+gerund participle: A preliminary exploration. Langues et linguistique 31, 31–61.Google Scholar
Eroms H. W.
1981Valenz, Kasus und Präpositionen: Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Semantik präpositionaler Konstruktionen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
[2009] 2010How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A.
2005Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through . Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18:1, 247–270.Google Scholar
Everett, C.
2013Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
[1985] 1994Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural languages. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
1998Conceptual integration network. Cognitive Science 22 (2), 133–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden nomplexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1985Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Fischer, O.
2000Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change grammaticalization in English (149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., Van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & Van Der Wurff W.
2000The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. & Duffley, P.
2009 Can vs. be able to: Why ‘semi-modals’ are not modals. In P. Sutcliffe, L. Stanford & A. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS Forum 35: Language and linguistics in North America 1608–2008: Diversity and convergence. Houston, TX: LACUS.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. & F. van der Leek
(Eds 1997Constructions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fries, N.
1988Präpositionen und Präpositionalphrasen im Deutschen und im Neugriechischen. Aspekte einer kontrastiven Analyse Deutsch-Neugriechisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
2006Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (141–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(Ed 2006Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & S. Goldin-Meadow
(Eds 2003Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
[1995] 2006The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In D. Geeraerts, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (141–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
2001Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Górska, E.
1999On parts and wholes: A cognitive study of English schematic part terms. Warszawa: Sigillum Universitatis Varsoviensis.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E.
1997aFoundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2 .Google Scholar
1997bTHEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive linguistics, 8–4, 267–290.Google Scholar
Gries, S.
2006Introduction. In S. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & A. Stefanowitsch
(Eds 2006Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & S. C. Levinson
(Eds 1996Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habel, C., Herweg, M., & K. Rehkämper
(Eds 1989Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Sprache und Raum. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haertlé, I.
2017Does grammatical gender influence perception? A study of Polish and French speakers. Psychology of Language and Communication 21 (1), 386–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
1993Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hampe, B.
2005Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed 2005From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W.
[1996] 1999Language form and communicative practices. In J. J. Gumpertz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (232–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
1989From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of gramaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10:1–2, 287–310.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A.
[1986] 2010Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herweg, M.
1988Zur Semantik einiger lokaler Präpositionen des Deutschen. Überlegungen zur Theorie der lexikalischen Semantik am Beispiel von in, an, bei und auf. Stuttgart: IBM Deutschland GmbH.Google Scholar
1989Ansätze zu einer semantischen Beschreibung topologischer Präpositionen. In C. Habel, M. Herweg, & K. Rehkämper (Eds.), Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Sprache und Raum (99–127). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ho-Abdullah, I.
2010Variety and variability: A corpus-based lexical-semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffman, S.
2005Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hofman, T. V.
2005Kontseptualizatsija prostranstva v semantike predlogov: tieoretiko-eksperimentalnoe issledovanije predlogov nad, naverkhu, poverkh, sverkh, vyshe, svyshe. [Oryg. Гофман Т.В. Концептуализация пространства в семантике предлогов: Теоретико-экспериментальное исследование предлогов над, наверху, поверх, сверх, выше, свыше.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Moscow: Russian Academy of Science. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/kontseptualizatsiya-prostranstva-v-semantike-predlogov-teoretiko-eksperimentalnoe-issledovan .
Holland, D., & N. Quinn
(Eds 1987Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hüllen, W., & R. Schulze
(Eds 1988Understanding the lexicon. Meaning, sense, and world knowledge in lexical semantics. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1983Semantics and cognition. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A.
1993A geography of case semantics: the Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L.
2013Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction. In L. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. The essential reader (1–32). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed 2013Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. The essential reader. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., & P. Seuren
(Eds 1989Sentential complementation and the lexicon. Studies in Honor of Wim de Geest (113–139). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1927A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalisz, R.
2001Językoznawstwo kognitywne w świetle językoznawstwa funkcjonalnego. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Kalyuga M.
2015The Russian Prepositions перед, против and напротив: a cognitive linguistic approach. Russian Language Journal, Vol. 65, 25–36Google Scholar
Kaufmann, I.
1993Semantic and conceptual aspects of the preposition durch. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Mental Processing (221–247). New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, W.
1981The Folk classification of ceramic: A study of cognitive prototypes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Khoruzhaya J. N.
2007Semanticheskie funktsii prostranstvennykh i vremennykh predlogov v nemetskom i russkom jazykakh. [Oryg. Хоружая E.Н. Семантические функции пространственных и временных предлогов в немецком и русском языках.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Krasnodar: Kuban State University. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/semanticheskie-funktsii-prostranstvennykh-i-vremennykh-predlogov-v-nemetskom-i-russkom-yazykakh .
Kibrik A. E.
1970K tipologii prostranstvennykh znachenij (na materiale padezshnyghk system dagestanskighk jazykov). Jazyk i chelovek. Moscow. MGU, 110–156. [Oryg. Кибрик А. Е. (1970) К типологии пространственных значений (на материале падежных систем дагестанских языков). Язык и человек. Москва: Изд. МГУ 1970. С 110–156.]Google Scholar
Klebanowska, B.
1971Znaczenie lokatywne polskich przyimków właściwych. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Kostyuchenkova N. V.
2004Predstavlenie gorizontalnoi osi ’vperedi-pozadi’ v kognitivnom aspekte: na materiale russkogo, norvezhskogo i anglijskogo jazykov. [Oryg. Костюченкова Н.В. Представление горизонтальной оси "впереди-позади" в когнитивном аспекте: На материале русского, норвежского и английского языков.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/predstavlenie-gorizontalnoi-osi-vperedi-pozadi-v-kognitivnom-aspekte-na-materiale-russkogo-n.
Kövecses, Z.
1986Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koźbiał, D.
2018Przyimki w wyrokach unijnych i krajowych. Analiza korpusowa dystrybucji i funkcji przyimków prostych, złożonych i wtórnych. Comparative Legilinguistics 35, 89–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, T.
1986Prototypes and equivalence. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics 21, 5–20.Google Scholar
1997Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Energeia.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
1973The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. J. Bailey, & R. Shuy (Eds.), New Ways of Analysing Variation in English (340–373). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1), 39–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[1979] 1993The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[1979] 2006The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (185–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
[1980] 2003Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
1989More than cool reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J. & A. Schwartz
(Eds 1991Master metaphor list (2nd ed.). Retrieved from: http://araw.mede.uic.edu/alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf .Google Scholar
Lambert, S.
2010Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses. Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing.Google Scholar
Lang, E.
1987Semantik der Dimensionsauszeichnung räumlicher Objekte. In M. Bierwisch, & E. Lang (Eds.), Semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (287–458). Studia grammatica 26, 27. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
1989The semantics of dimensional designation of spatial objects. In M. Bierwisch, & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation (263–417). Berlin: Springer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993The meaning of German projective prepositions: A two-level approach. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Mental Processing (249–291). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech. G. N.
1969Towards a semantic description of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
2011Frequency, corpora and language learning. In F. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin, & M. Paquot (Eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger (7–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P.
(Ed 1988Prototypes in language and cognition. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Leontieva N. N., & Nikitina, S. E.
1969Smyslovye otnoshenija peredavaemyje ruskimi predlogami. Slavica IX. Debrecen, 15–63. [Oryg. Леонтьева Н. Н., Никитина С. Е. (1969) Смысловые отношения, передаваемые русскими предлогами. Slavica IX. Debrecen, 15–63.]Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
[2003] 2004Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
2010English prepositions explained. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyagushkina N. V.
2002Semanticheskije predstavlenia relevantnye dlja opisania znachenia rjada prostranstvennykh predlogov i narechij. [Oryg. Лягушкина Н. В. Семантические представления, релевантные для описания значения ряда пространственных предлогов и наречий.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Moscow: Russian Academy of Science. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/semanticheskie-predstavleniya-relevantnye-dlya-opisaniya-znacheniya-ryada-prostranstvennykh-predlogov-i-narechij .
Lyons, J.
[1977] 1996Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacLaury, R.
1991Prototypes revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 55–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maeder, C., Fischer, O., & W. J. Herlofsky
(Eds 2005Outside-In – Inside-Out: Iconicity in language and literature 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maltseva O. L.
2004Predlog kak sredstvo kontseptualizatsii prostranstvennykh otnoshenij. [Oryg. Мальцева О. Л. Предлог как средство концептуализации пространственных отношений.] (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Tver: Kursk State University. Retrieved from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/predlog-kak-sredstvo-kontseptualizatsii-prostranstvennykh-otnoshenii-strony .
Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, J., & Safranow, K.
2020Zum Einfluss des Genus auf die Konzeptualisierung der Objekte vor dem Hintergrund der verkörperten Kognition. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 50 (4), 605–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., & M. Paquot
(Eds 2011A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milewska, B.
2003Przyimki wtórne we współczesnej polszczyźnie. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N.
1976Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. E.
(Ed 1973Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. L.
[1993] 2005Meronymy. In K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A., & C. T. Onions
(Eds 1989The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Newman, J.
1996Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A.
(Ed [1979] 1993Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U., Thornburg, L. L., & A. Barcelona
(Eds 2009Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
2009The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In K. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (339–361). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
P. Pérez-Sobrino, F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & A. Luzondo
(Eds 2017Constructing families of constructions. (205–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pick, H. L., & L. P. Acredolo
(Eds 1983Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. New York & London: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
1994The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Przybylska, R.
2002Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., & R. Dirven
(Eds 1996The Construal of space in language and thought. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, I., & A. Wöllstein
2013Satzwertige zu-Infinitivkonstruktionen. In J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach, & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen (338–355). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J.
[1979] 1993The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, S.
1996Prepositional prototypes. In Pütz, M., & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (135–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rice, S., & Kabata, K.
2007Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11, 451–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
1973On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (111–144). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 (3), 192–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & B. B. Lloyd
(Eds 1978Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. M.
1975Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudkiewicz, K.
2016Cognitive explorations into the category schema of for. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
1988Semantic extensions into the domain of verbal communication. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (507–553). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
(Ed 1988Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S.
1995Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6:1, 89–130.Google Scholar
Saphiro, L.
2011Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sapir, E.
[1929] 1949The status of linguistics as a science. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), The selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture, and personality (160–166). Barkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Šarić, L.
2008Spatial concepts in Slavic. A cognitive linguistic study of preposition and cases. (Slavistische Studienbucher. Neue Folge, Book 19). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Schulc-Brzozowska, M.
2009Deutsche und polnische Präpositionen: ein Vergleich aus monosemnatischer Sicht. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Schulze, R.
1993The meaning of (a)round: A study of an English preposition. In A. Geiger, & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualization and mental processing in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwarz, M.
1992Einführung in die Kognitive Linguistik. Francke: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Segel, E., & Boroditsky, L.
2011Grammar in art. Frontiers in Psychology 1, 1–3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selivestrova O. N.
2004Trudy po semantikie. [Oryg. О. Н. Селиверстова, Труды по семантике.] Москва: Studia Philologica. [Moscow: Studia Philologica.]Google Scholar
Selivestrova O. N., & Malyar, T. N.
1998Prostranstvenno-distancionnye predlogi i narecija v russkom i anglijskom jazykach. [Oryg. Ce ливерстовa О. Н. Т. H. Маляр, Пространственно-дистанционные предлоги и наречия в русском и английском языках.] München: Sagner.Google Scholar
Siegmund, D. O.
2022The central limit theorem. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/science/probability-theory/The-central-limit-theorem .
Sheremeteva E. S.
2008Otymennye relyativy sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. [Oryg. Шереметьева Е.С., Oтыменные релятивы современного русского языка. Cемантические этюды. Владивосток: Дальневост.] Semanticheskie etyudy. Vladivostok: Dalnevost.Google Scholar
Shiganova G. A.
2003Relyativnye frazeologizmy russkogo jazyka. [Oryg. Шинганова Г.А., Релятивные фразеологизмы русского языка. Челябинск: Челябинский государственный университет.] Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk National University.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
[1996] 1999From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005Linguistic representations of motion events: What is signifier and what is signified? In C. Maeder, O. Fischer, & W. J. Herlofsky (Eds.), Outside-In – Inside-Out: Iconicity in Language and Literature 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. B.
2009The semantics of complementation in English: A cognitive semantic account of two English complement constructions. Language Sciences 31, 360–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, P., Stanford, L., & A. Lommel
(Eds 2009LACUS Forum 35: Language and linguistics in North America 1608–2008: Diversity and convergence. Houston, TX: LACUS.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sysak-Borońska, M. G.
1975Some remarks on the spatio-relative system in English and Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 3, 185–208.Google Scholar
Szwedek, A.
2007Polysemy and metaphorization. In W. Chłopicki, A. Pawelec, & A. Pokojska (Eds.), Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska (255–272). Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
1978The relation of grammar to cognition. A synopsis. In D. L. Waltz (Ed.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing 2 (14–24). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
1983How language structures space. In H. L. Pick, & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. (14–24). New York & London: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.1. Concept structuring system. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
2005The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (199–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
[1989] 1995Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2002Cognitive grammar. Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (324–347). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trofimova A.
2014O roli russkikh predlogov v strukturirovanii prostranstva. [Oryg. Трофимова A., О роли русских предлогов в структурировании пространства.] Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/7969-416-7.35.
Turner, M.
1991Reading minds. The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2003The semantics of English prepositions. Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
1991Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M.
1996The story of -ing: A subjective perspective. In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (417–454). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vinogradova, E. N., & Klobukova, L. P.
2017Preposition: the biggest challenges of a small part of speech. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15 (3), 299–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vsevolodova M. V., & Vladimirskij, E. Y.
1982Sposoby vyrazhenija prostranstvennykh otnoshenij v sovremennom russkom jazykie. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. [Oryg. Всеволодова М. В., Владимирский Е. Ю. 1982 Способы выражения пространственных отношений в современном русском языке. Москва: Русский язык.]Google Scholar
Wahrig, G., Krämer, H., & H. Zimmermann
(Eds 1984Brockhaus Wahrig: Deutsches Wörterbuch in sechs Bänden. Wiesbaden: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Waltz, D. L.
(Ed 1978Theoretical issues in natural language processing 2. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Wasilewska, K.
2018Frekwencja oraz funkcje przyimków złożonych i wtórnych w sprawozdaniach administracyjnych. LingVaria XIII 1(25), 273–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, H.
1985Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
1989Eine Modalpartikel besonderer Art: Der Dativus Ethicus. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln (56–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinsberg, A.
1973Przyimki przestrzenne w języku polskim, niemieckim i rumuńskim. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Weydt, H.
(Ed 1989Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
[1940] 1956Linguistics as an exact science. Technology Review, 43. Reprinted in J. B. Carroll (Ed.), In Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 220–232.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1985Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
[1986] 2016The meaning of case: A study of the Polish dative. In R. D. Brecht, & J. S. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (386–426). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
1958Philosophical investigations. Transl. by G. E. M. Anscobe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wójcik, T.
1979Z zagadnień teorii przyimka. Kielce: Pracownia Poligraficzna.Google Scholar
Wöllstein, A.
2008Konzepte der Satzkonnexion. Stauffenberg: Narr.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
1991How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29, 591–621. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C.
(Ed 1993The Semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar