Review published In:
Applying Cognitive Linguistics: Figurative language in use, constructions and typology
Edited by Ana M. Piquer-Píriz and Rafael Alejo-González
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:1] 2016
► pp. 235245
References (12)
References
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. In K. Hall, M. Meacham, & R. Shapiro (eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 1–14). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, G. (in prep.). Gapping and right node raising in the English Penn Treebank. Manuscript, LLF & Université Paris 7.
Boas, H. C. (ed.). (2010). Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Englebert, A. (1998). L’infinitif dit de narration. Paris/Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (eds.). (2004). Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gatto, M. (2014). Web as corpus: Theory and practice. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2010). What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language use and language structure (pp. 3–43). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Volumes 1 and 21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2002). ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 261, 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. (2009). Constructional meanings of verb-noun compounds in Spanish: Limpiabotas vs. tientaparedes. Language Sciences, 311, 507–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar