Article published in:
Expressing and Describing Surprise
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 353382
References

References

Akatsuka, N.
(1985) Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language, 61(3), 625–639. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A.
(2008) Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography; A study of synonymy. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Bondarko, A.
(1991) Functional grammar. A field approach (trans. I. Chulaki). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H.
(2007) Predicting the dative. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation alternation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S.
(1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 369–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16, 529–564.Google Scholar
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L.
(2001) Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 339–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E.
(1982) The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D.
(2010) Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J., Scherer, K., & Soriano, C.
(Eds.) (2013) Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P.
(1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2008) Lexical fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy. A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) Polysemy, syntax, and variation. A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–486). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, D.
(Eds.) (2010) Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J.
(Eds.) (2014) Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S.T.
(1999) Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 105–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D.
(2003) Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 67–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Heylen, K.
(2005) A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K.
(2014a) Shame and its near-synonyms in English: A multivariate corpus-driven approach to social emotions. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 84–94). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2014b) Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (pp. 355–386). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2014c) Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54, 441–475.Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D.
in press). Operationalising construal. Of / about prepositional profiling for cognition and communication predicates. In C.M. Bretones Callejas & C. Sinha (Eds.) Construals in language and thought: What shapes what? Amsterdam John Benjamins
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lattin, J.M., Carrol, J.D., & Green, P.E.
(2003) Analyzing multivariate data. Pacific Grove: Thomson Brooks.Google Scholar
McFadden, D.
(1978) Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent developments. In D.A. Hensher & P.R. Stopher (Eds.), Behavioral travel modeling (pp. 279–318). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Nordmark, H., & Glynn, D.
(2013) Anxiety between mind and society: A corpus-driven cross-cultural study of conceptual metaphors. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1, 107–130.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J.
(2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 383–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K.
(2005) What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44, 693–727. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soriano, C., Fontaine, J.R.J., & Scherer, K.R.
(this volume). Surprise in the GRID.
Speelman, D.
(2005) LiveJournal corpus of British and American English. Leuven University.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2010) Empirical Cognitive Semantics: Some thoughts. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 355– 380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winner, E., Windmueller, G., Rosenblatt, E., Bosco, L., Best, E., & Gardner, H.
(1987) Making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 13–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

De Wit, Astrid
2017. The expression of mirativity through aspectual constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2  pp. 385 ff. Crossref logo
Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
2019.  In Emotion in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 302],  pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Ghesquière, Lobke & Faye Troughton
2021. What a Change! A Diachronic Study of Exclamative What Constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 49:2  pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2017. A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1  pp. 253 ff. Crossref logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek . Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2  pp. 355 ff. Crossref logo
SERRANO-LOSADA, MARIO
2020. Analogy-driven change: the emergence and development of mirative end up constructions in American English. English Language and Linguistics 24:1  pp. 97 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 september 2021. 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.