Article in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp. 397427
References

References

Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E.
(2009) Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 49–59). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bretones Callejas, C. M.
(2001) Synaesthetic metaphors in English. Technical Reports, TR 01–008. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cytowic, R. E.
(2002) Synaesthesia: A union of the senses. Massachusetts: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D. M.
(2009) Wednesday is indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synaesthesia. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Day, S.
(1996) Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32), 1–16.Google Scholar
Elias, L. J., Deborah, M., Saucier, D. M., Hardie, C., & Sarty, G. E.
(2003) Dissociating semantic and perceptual components of synaesthesia: Behavioural and functional neuroanatomical investigations. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 232–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In I. Yang (Ed.), Linguistic in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111–137). Hanshin, Seoul.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
(1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbours. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. A., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
(2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O.
(2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J. O. Östman & M. Fried, Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (Vol. 3) (pp. 17–43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D.
(2006) English constructions. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. (pp. 343–355). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Suttle, L.
(2010) Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(14), 468–477.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive applications (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, K. E.
(2006) Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: Temporal meanings of front in Japanese, Wolof and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 759–776. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Frames and the experiential basis of the Moving Time metaphor. In M. Fried & N. Nikiforidou (Eds.), Advances in frame semantics (pp. 85–107). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J. O., & Fried, M.
(2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (Vol. 3). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perception frame
Rogowska, A. M.
(2015) Synaesthesia and individual differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. California: International Computer Science Technology.Google Scholar
Simner, J.
(2007) Beyond perception: synaesthesia as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 23–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K.
(2006) Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. In Proceedings of the thirty-second annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K., & Sweetser, E.
(2009) Is “generic is specific” a metaphor? In F. Parrill, V. Tobin & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, form and body (pp. 309–328). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar