Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp. 253287

Full-text

A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek
References

References

Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A.
(2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boers, F.
(1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1988)  The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon . New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 477–507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaffe, W.
(1970) Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Díez Velasco, O. I.
(2001) Metaphor, metonymy and image-schemas: An analysis of conceptual integration patterns. Journal of English Studies, 3, 47–63. 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D.
(2006) Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Fieller, N.
(2014) Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 405–441). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A.
(2004) Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in . In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157–192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2005) Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K.
(2010) The semasiological structure of Polish mýsleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 223–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zambolli (Ed.), Linguistic structure processing (pp. 55–82). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(1987) On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics, 5, 275–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
(1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
(1999) Convergentie en divergentie in de nederlandse woordenschat. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Gesmann, M., & de Castillo, D.
(2011) Using the Google chart tools with R: googleVis-0.5.2 Package Vignette (Version 0.5.2). Retrieved from http://​cran​.rproject​.org​/web​/packages​/googleVis​/vignettes​/googleVis​.pdf
Gilquin, G. (2010) Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010a) Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: 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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010c) 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. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) The many uses of run: corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 117–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of caradigms. New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run . In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R.
(2001) Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 78, 207–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K., Wielfaert, T., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2015) Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua, 157, 153–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2011) Dynamic visualizations of language change. Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4), 435–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V.
(2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness . Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A.
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31, 91–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, R. (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D.
(2015) Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 353–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I.
(2012) A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 48, 439–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1977) Linguistic gestalts. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 236–287.Google Scholar
(1982) Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. In (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
(1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A.
(1982) Wine and conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGuillivray, B., Johanson, C., & Apollon, D.
(2008) Semantic structure from correspondence analysis. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of 3rd Textgraphs workshop on Graph-Based Algorithms in Natural Language Processing (pp. 49–52). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Ed.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S.
(1995) Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J.
(1993) Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin: Die kategorisierung als grundprinzip einer differenzierten bedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2010) Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 173–204). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.[ p. 287 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1  pp. 27 ff. Crossref logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2018. Constructions and image-schema preservation. A historical-comparative analysis of PAY in Greek and English. Lingua 206  pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 40:2  pp. 355 ff. Crossref logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2020. Image schemas as prototypes in the diachronic evolution of kámnō and eutheiázō in Greek: A behavioural-profile analysis. Lingua 245  pp. 102938 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.