Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (2014) ► pp.471491
Coates, J
(1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London/Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
de Haan, F
(1997) The interaction of modality and negation: A typological study. New York/ London: Garland.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, S., & Zeijlstra, H
(2010) On the scopal interaction of negation and deontic modals. Logic, Language and Meaning, 315–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G.N
(1969) Toward a semantic description of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, J
(1977) Semantics. 2 volumes1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myhill, J
(1996) The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech, 711, 339–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostler, N., & Atkins, B.T.S
(1992) Predictable meaning shift: Some lexical properties of lexical implication rules. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical Semantics & commonsense reasoning, Proceedings of SIGLEX workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics 1991. ([URL])
Palmer, F.R
(1990) Modality and the English modals. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelyvás, P
(1996) Subjectivity in English: Generative Grammar versus the cognitive theory of epistemic grounding. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2011) Motivation in English must and Hungarian kell. In K.-U. Panther & 
G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 171–190). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U
(2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E
(1990) From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 121, 49–100. Revised version in L. Talmy. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring (pp. 409–470). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Benczes, Réka
2015. “Cognitive Linguistics is fun”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2  pp. 479 ff. DOI logo
2021. Yoga instructions in Polish and Russian as directive speech acts: a cognitive linguistic perspective. Language and Cognition 13:4  pp. 613 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.