Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp. 403428
References

[ p. 424 ]References

Almuoseb, A.
(2016) A lexical-semantic analysis of the English prepositions at, on and in and their conceptual mapping onto Arabic. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 4(1), 211–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnett, C., & Deifel, K.
(2015) Two-way prepositions and L2 Students of German. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory: Applications for Second and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 183–201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bellavia, E.
(1996) The German über . In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 73–107). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bender, A., Bennardo, G., & Beller, S.
(2005) Spatial frames of reference for temporal relations: A conceptual analysis in English, German, and Tongan. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 220–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berez, A., & Gries, S. Th.
(2009) In defense of corpus-based methods: a behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. Proceedings of 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference, 27, 157–166.Google Scholar
Boers, F.
(1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
(1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT journal, 53(3), 197–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brala-Vukanovic, M., & Rubinic, N.
(2011) Croatian spatial prepositions and prefixes. A cognitive semantic analysis. Fluminensia, 23(2), 21–37.Google Scholar
Bratož, S.
(2014) Teaching English locative prepositions: A cognitive perspective. Linguistica, 45(1), 325–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brenda, M.
(2015) The semantics of at . In E. Komorowska (Ed.), Annales Neophilologiarum 9 (pp. 25–55). Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) A cognitive perspective on the semantics near . Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 121–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The semantics of the English complex preposition next to . Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 438–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1981) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Carstensen, K-U.
(2015) A cognitivist attentional semantics of locative prepositions. In G. Marchetti, G. Benedetti & A. Alharbi (Eds.), Attention and meaning. The attentional basis of meaning (pp. 93–132). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R.
(1998) Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier & K. Gapp (Eds.), The Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 247–262). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
(2015) Space. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 489–507). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L.
(2001) The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of over, under, above, and below . Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 376–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 425 ]
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H.
(1991) The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch: A cognitive-linguistic exercise. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Dewell, R.
(1994) Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2005) The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41(1), 33–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) The perceptual basis of spatial representation. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 21–48). London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
(2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, J., & Weiss, P.
(1996) The prepositional inventory of languages: A factor that affects comprehension of spatial prepositions. Language Sciences, 18, 19–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015) Polysemy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Grady, J.
(Eds.) (2005) From perception to meaning. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalisz, R.
(1990) A cognitive approach to spatial terms represented by in front of and behind in English, and their metaphorical extensions. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & J. Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Meaning and Lexicography (pp. 167–180). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kokorniak, I.
(2007) English at: an integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, A.
(1997) Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 291–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to the teaching of the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R.
(1993) “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Viewing in cognition and grammar. In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 153–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 426 ]
Levinson, S. C.
(2003) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liamkina, O.
(2007) Semantic structure of the German spatial particle über . Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 19(2), 115–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S.
(1981) A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with ‘up’ and ‘out.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
(2010) English prepositions explained (Revised ed.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) An update on frequent English spatial prepositions: Are they monosemic, polysemic, or something else?. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lu, W.-L.
(2015) A cognitive linguistic approach to teaching spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analyses to material design. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and sociocultural theory (pp. 51–72). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahpeykar, N.
(2018) The role of embodiment in the semantic analysis of phrasal verbs. Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahpeykar, N., & Tyler, A.
(2011) The semantics of Farsi be: Applying the principled polysemy model. In M. Egenhofer, N. Giudice, R. Moratz & M. Worboys (Eds.), Spatial information theory. COSIT 2011. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol 6899 (pp. 413–433). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) A principled cognitive linguistics account of English phrasal verbs with up and out. Language and Cognition, 4(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martín, M. A.
(2000) A cognitive approach to the polysemy of ‘through’. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 8, 11–38.Google Scholar
Meex, B.
(2002) Die Wegpreposition über . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden, Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 157–176). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morras, J., & Barcelona, A.
(2019) Conceptual structuring of the English prepositions between, among, and amid, and their Spanish equivalent entre: A cognitive linguistic approach to spatial, non-spatial and temporal scenes. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 103–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, C. M.
(2015) A semantic account of the English preposition FOR based on a cognitive linguistics framework. 藤女子大学文学部紀要, 53(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Navarro, I.
(1998) A cognitive semantics analysis of the lexical units AT, ON, and IN in English. Ph.D. dissertation. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I de CastellóGoogle Scholar
(2002) Towards a description of the meaning of AT. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, D., & Dirven, M.
(Eds.) (1996) The construal of space in language and thought. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, U. A.
(2014) Die metaphorische Bedeutungsvielfalt von Präpositionen im DaF-Unterricht an brasilianischen Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Didaktik und Methodik im Bereich Deutsch als Fremdsprache 19(2), 146–170.Google Scholar
[ p. 427 ]
Shakhova, D., & A. Tyler
(2010) Taking the principled polysemy model of spatial particles beyond English: The case of Russian za . In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 267–291). London, Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1993) Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 151–179). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turewicz, K.
(1994) English IN and ON; Polish W and NA. A Cognitive Grammar perspective. In E. Gussman & H. Kardela (Eds), Focus on language (pp. 1–22). Lublin: Maria Curie – Skodowska University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Understanding prepositions through cognitive grammar. A case of IN. In K. Turewicz (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics – a user friendly approach (pp. 100–126). Szczecin: Szczecin University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724–765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Spatial scenes: A cognitive approach to English prepositions and the experiential basis of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Mueller, C. M., & Ho, V.
(2011) Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English TO, FOR, and AT: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 122–140.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
(1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wang, B., & Su, L.
(2015) On the principled polysemy of -kai in Chinese resultative verbs. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 2–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
(1993) On German UM: Semantic and conceptual aspects. Linguistics, 31(1), 111–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C.
(1993) Introduction. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 1–24). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(1997) Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
(2007) Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Online dictionaries and database

Duden
n.d.). Duden dictionary online. https://​www​.duden​.de
DWDS
n.d.). Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. www​.dwds​.de
[ p. 428 ]