Cover not available
Part of
A Cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions: Intertwining networks
Maria Brenda and Jolanta Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska
[Human Cognitive Processing 74] 2022
► pp. 229–240

Bibliography

References (214)
Aggis, T. 1986. Lokale Präpositionen im Deutschen und ihre griechischen Entsprechungen. Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. J. & R. Shuy (Eds.). 1973. New ways of analysing variation in English. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2003. Clarifying 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. 2011. On affectedness. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227334439.
Bellavia, E. 1996. The 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. 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Berezina, E. N. 2008. Kontseptualizatsija 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 (Unpublished PhD dissertation.)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. 2013. Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bierwisch M. & E. Lang (Eds.). 1987a. Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven. Studia grammatica 26, 27. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & E. Lang (Eds.). 1987b. Semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven (Studia grammatica). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
(Eds.). 1989. Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bluszcz, A. 1987. Relacje przestrzenne w polskich, czeskich i słowackich konstrukcjach z wyrażeniami przyimkowymi. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. 2001a. Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b. How 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. 2003. Sex, 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. 2003. Semantika 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] 2016. Case in Slavic. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Brenda, M. 2017. A cognitive perspective on the semantics of near. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1, 121–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. [1981] 1988. The Story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Chernyshev A. B. 2010. Kognitivnoe 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.). 2007. Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska (255–272). Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. J. 1989. Spatial cognition and semantics of prepositions in English, Polish, and Russian. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. STRAIGHT: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics 9–2, 107–149.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Communities, 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. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive linguistics 10–11, 1–31.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. S. 1968. A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions. Cambridge: Bolt, Beranek and Newman Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. 2004. Saying, seeing, and acting : The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, C. (Ed.). 1986. Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A. D. [2000] 2006. Aspects 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. 1993. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. 1997. How 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. 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: the case of the English preposition to. Language Sciences 37, 122–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S. 2013. A sociolinguistic analysis of the German alternation between bis an and bis zu constructions. Belgium, Europe: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. 2017. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R. B. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformation in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5, 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. 1989. Cognitive 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Dividing 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & R. Pörings (Eds.). 2003. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Langauge 67 (3), 547–619. Retreived from: http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/syntax-circle/syntax-group/dowty91.pdf. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drosdowski, G., Köster, R., Müller, W., & W. Scholze-Stubenrecht (Eds.) 1994. Die Grammatik. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. 2003. The gerund and the to‑infinitive as subject. Journal of English Linguistics 31–4, 324–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Verbs of liking with the infinitive and the gerund. English Studies 4, 358–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. A natural-language semantics approach to infinitival and gerund-participial complementation in English. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Studies 22, 55–67.Google Scholar
2009. Complementation with verbs of choice in English. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54–1, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, P., & Fisher, R. 2005. Verb+to+infinitive vs. verb+to+gerund participle: A preliminary exploration. Langues et linguistique 31, 31–61.Google Scholar
Eroms H. W. 1981. Valenz, Kasus und Präpositionen: Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Semantik präpositionaler Konstruktionen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Evans, V. [2009] 2010. How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. 2005. Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18:1, 247–270.Google Scholar
Everett, C. 2013. Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. [1985] 1994. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural languages. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration network. Cognitive Science 22 (2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden nomplexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2000. Grammaticalisation: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., Van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & Van Der Wurff W. 2000. The 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.). 1997. Constructions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fries, N. 1988. Präpositionen und Präpositionalphrasen im Deutschen und im Neugriechischen. Aspekte einer kontrastiven Analyse Deutsch-Neugriechisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (141–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (Ed.). 2006. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.). 2003. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. [1995] 2006. The 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. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Górska, E. 1999. On parts and wholes: A cognitive study of English schematic part terms. Warszawa: Sigillum Universitatis Varsoviensis.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. 1997a. Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2.Google Scholar
1997b. THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive linguistics, 8–4, 267–290.Google Scholar
Gries, S. 2006. Introduction. In S. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.). 2006. Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & S. C. Levinson (Eds.). 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habel, C., Herweg, M., & K. Rehkämper (Eds.). 1989. Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Sprache und Raum. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haertlé, I. 2017. Does grammatical gender influence perception? A study of Polish and French speakers. Psychology of Language and Communication 21 (1), 386–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. 2005. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). 2005. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. [1996] 1999. Language 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. 1989. From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of gramaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10:1–2, 287–310.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. [1986] 2010. Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herweg, M. 1988. Zur 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
1989. Ansätze 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho-Abdullah, I. 2010. Variety 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. 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hofman, T. V. 2005. Kontseptualizatsija 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.). 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüllen, W., & R. Schulze (Eds.). 1988. Understanding the lexicon. Meaning, sense, and world knowledge in lexical semantics. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. 1993. A geography of case semantics: the Czech dative and the Russian instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. 2013. Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction. In L. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. The essential reader (1–32). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). 2013. Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. The essential reader. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., & P. Seuren (Eds.). 1989. Sentential complementation and the lexicon. Studies in Honor of Wim de Geest (113–139). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1927. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalisz, R. 2001. Językoznawstwo kognitywne w świetle językoznawstwa funkcjonalnego. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Kalyuga M. 2015. The Russian Prepositions перед, против and напротив: a cognitive linguistic approach. Russian Language Journal, Vol. 65, 25–36Google Scholar
Kaufmann, I. 1993. Semantic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempton, W. 1981. The Folk classification of ceramic: A study of cognitive prototypes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Khoruzhaya J. N. 2007. Semanticheskie 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. 1970. K 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. 1971. Znaczenie lokatywne polskich przyimków właściwych. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Kostyuchenkova N. V. 2004. Predstavlenie 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. 1986. Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koźbiał, D. 2018. Przyimki w wyrokach unijnych i krajowych. Analiza korpusowa dystrybucji i funkcji przyimków prostych, złożonych i wtórnych. Comparative Legilinguistics 35, 89–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. 1986. Prototypes and equivalence. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics 21, 5–20.Google Scholar
1997. Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Energeia.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1973. The 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. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1), 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[1979] 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[1979] 2006. The 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] 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. 1989. More than cool reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J. & A. Schwartz (Eds.). 1991. Master metaphor list (2nd ed.). Retrieved from: http://araw.mede.uic.edu/alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf.Google Scholar
Lambert, S. 2010. Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses. Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing.Google Scholar
Lang, E. 1987. Semantik 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
1989. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech. G. N. 1969. Towards a semantic description of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2011. Frequency, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. (Ed.). 1988. Prototypes in language and cognition. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Leontieva N. N., & Nikitina, S. E. 1969. Smyslovye 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] 2004. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyagushkina N. V. 2002. Semanticheskije 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] 1996. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacLaury, R. 1991. Prototypes revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology 20, 55–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maeder, C., Fischer, O., & W. J. Herlofsky (Eds.). 2005. Outside-In – Inside-Out: Iconicity in language and literature 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maltseva O. L. 2004. Predlog 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. 2020. Zum Einfluss des Genus auf die Konzeptualisierung der Objekte vor dem Hintergrund der verkörperten Kognition. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 50 (4), 605–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., & M. Paquot (Eds.). 2011. A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milewska, B. 2003. Przyimki wtórne we współczesnej polszczyźnie. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. E. (Ed.). 1973. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. L. [1993] 2005. Meronymy. 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.). 1989. The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Newman, J. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A. (Ed.). [1979] 1993. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U., Thornburg, L. L., & A. Barcelona (Eds.), 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2009. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
P. Pérez-Sobrino, F. Ruiz de Mendoza, & A. Luzondo (Eds.). 2017. Constructing families of constructions. (205–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pick, H. L., & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.). 1983. Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. New York & London: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Przybylska, R. 2002. Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., & R. Dirven (Eds.). 1996. The Construal of space in language and thought. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapp, I., & A. Wöllstein. 2013. Satzwertige zu-Infinitivkonstruktionen. In J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach, & H. Altmann (Eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen (338–355). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J. [1979] 1993. The 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. 1996. Prepositional 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. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11, 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1973. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 (3), 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978. Principles 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.). 1978. Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. M. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudkiewicz, K. 2016. Cognitive explorations into the category schema of for. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 1988. Semantic extensions into the domain of verbal communication. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (507–553). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
(Ed.). 1988. Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. 1995. Network 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. 2011. Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. [1929] 1949. The 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. 2008. Spatial concepts in Slavic. A cognitive linguistic study of preposition and cases. (Slavistische Studienbucher. Neue Folge, Book 19). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Schulc-Brzozowska, M. 2009. Deutsche und polnische Präpositionen: ein Vergleich aus monosemnatischer Sicht. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Schulze, R. 1993. The 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. 1992. Einführung in die Kognitive Linguistik. Francke: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Segel, E., & Boroditsky, L. 2011. Grammar in art. Frontiers in Psychology 1, 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selivestrova O. N. 2004. Trudy po semantikie. [Oryg. О. Н. Селиверстова, Труды по семантике.] Москва: Studia Philologica. [Moscow: Studia Philologica.]Google Scholar
Selivestrova O. N., & Malyar, T. N. 1998. Prostranstvenno-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. 2022. The central limit theorem. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.britannica.com/science/probability-theory/The-central-limit-theorem.
Sheremeteva E. S. 2008. Otymennye 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. 2003. Relyativnye 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] 1999. From ‘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
2005. Linguistic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. B. 2009. The semantics of complementation in English: A cognitive semantic account of two English complement constructions. Language Sciences 31, 360–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, P., Stanford, L., & A. Lommel (Eds.). 2009. LACUS Forum 35: Language and linguistics in North America 1608–2008: Diversity and convergence. Houston, TX: LACUS.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sysak-Borońska, M. G. 1975. Some remarks on the spatio-relative system in English and Polish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 3, 185–208.Google Scholar
Szwedek, A. 2007. Polysemy 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. 1978. The 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
1983. How language structures space. In H. L. Pick, & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application. (14–24). New York & London: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol.1. Concept structuring system. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
2005. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. [1989] 1995. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003. Category 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. 2014. O 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. 1991. Reading minds. The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. 1996. The 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. 2017. Preposition: the biggest challenges of a small part of speech. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15 (3), 299–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vsevolodova M. V., & Vladimirskij, E. Y. 1982. Sposoby 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.). 1984. Brockhaus Wahrig: Deutsches Wörterbuch in sechs Bänden. Wiesbaden: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Waltz, D. L. (Ed.). 1978. Theoretical issues in natural language processing 2. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Wasilewska, K. 2018. Frekwencja oraz funkcje przyimków złożonych i wtórnych w sprawozdaniach administracyjnych. LingVaria XIII 1(25), 273–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegener, H. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
1989. Eine Modalpartikel besonderer Art: Der Dativus Ethicus. In H. Weydt (Ed.), Sprechen mit Partikeln (56–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinsberg, A. 1973. Przyimki przestrzenne w języku polskim, niemieckim i rumuńskim. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Weydt, H. (Ed.). 1989. Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. [1940] 1956. Linguistics 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. 1985. Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
[1986] 2016. The 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. 1958. Philosophical investigations. Transl. by G. E. M. Anscobe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wójcik, T. 1979. Z zagadnień teorii przyimka. Kielce: Pracownia Poligraficzna.Google Scholar
Wöllstein, A. 2008. Konzepte der Satzkonnexion. Stauffenberg: Narr.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29, 591–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (Ed.). 1993. The Semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar