Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp. 121153

Full-text

A cognitive perspective on the semantics of near
References

References

Burigo, M., & Coventry, K.
(2010) Context affects scale selection for proximity terms. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 10, 292–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus
Retrieved June 21, 2014 from http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk.
Brenda, M.
(2014) The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
(1999) Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10, 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C.
(2004) Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. D.
(2000) Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 31–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H.
(1993) The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.). The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 27–72). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deane, P.
(2005) Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over . In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (1993) Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2004) Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E.
(2005) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagège, C.
(2010) Adpositions: Function-marking in human languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A.
(1986) Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ho-Abdullah, I.
(2010) Variety and variability: A corpus-based cognitive lexical-semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) A student’s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1951[1924]) Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kokorniak, I.
(2007) English at: An integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google 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: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
(2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D.
(1996) A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Space and language (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, T.
(1993) Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Gylling: Odense University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., & Wolff, P.
(Eds.) (2010) Words in the mind: How words capture human experience. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A., & Onions, C. T.
(Eds.) (1989) The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Navarro-Ferrando, I.
(1999) The metaphorical use of on . Journal of English Studies, 1, 145–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in . Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 26, 189–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Towards the description of the meaning of at . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007[1998]) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(2007[1998]) Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Saussure, de F.
(1959[1916]) Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Svorou, S.
(1994) The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.
(1988) Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 406–416). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial senses, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Brenda, Maria
2019. The semantics of the English complex preposition next to . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:2  pp. 438 ff. Crossref logo
Kalyuga, Marika
2020.  In Russian Prepositional Phrases,  pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 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.