Cover not available
Part of
Embodiment in Latin Semantics
Edited by William Michael Short
[Studies in Language Companion Series 174] 2016
► pp. 1–14

Introduction

| The University of Texas at San Antonio
Published online: 11 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.174.01sho
References (83)
References
Allan, Rutger. 2003. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study of Polysemy. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Allwood, Jens and Gårdenfors, Peter. 1999. Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alverson, Hoyt. 1994. Semantics and Experience: Universal Metaphors of Time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bettini, Maurizio & Short, William (eds). 2014. Con i Romani: Antropologia della cultura antica. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 233‒54. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boden, Margaret. 2008. Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bonifazi, Anna. 2008. Memory and visualization in Homeric discourse markers. In Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, E. Anne Mackay (ed.), 35‒64. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. The pragmatic meanings of some discourse markers in Homer. In Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie, Elisabeth Rieken & Paul Widmer (eds), 29‒36. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
. 2009b. Discourse cohesion through third person pronouns: The case of κεῖνος and αὐτός in Homer. In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, Gerry Wakker & Stephanie Bakker (eds), 1‒19. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Anaphoric pronouns αὐτός and κεῖνος in Homer: a cognitive-pragmatic approach. In La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, Ignazio Putzu, Giulio Paulis, Gianfranco Nieddu, & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 97‒114. Milan: Francoangeli.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75: 1‒28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, Mario, Omazić, Marija, Pavičić Takač, Višnja, Gradečak-Erdeljić, Tanja & Buljan, Gabrijela (eds). 2011. Space and Time in Language. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brucale, Luisa & Mocciaro, Egle. 2011. Continuity and discontinuity in the semantics of the Latin preposition Per: A cognitive hypothesis. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung: Language Typology and Universals 64(2): 148-69.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia & Lakoff, George. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, Steven Small, Garrison Cottrell & Michael Tanenhaus (eds), 477‒508. San Mateo CA: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cairns, Douglas. 2008. Look both ways: Studying emotion in Ancient Greek. Critical Quarterly 50(4): 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Weeping and veiling: Grief, display, and concealment in Ancient Greek culture. In Tears in the Greco-Roman World, Thursten Fögen (ed.), 37–57. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2013. A short history of shudders. In Unveiling Emotions II – Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture, Angelos Chaniotis & Pierre Ducrey (eds), 85–107. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
. 2015. The horror and the pity. Pyschoanalytical Inquiry 35: 75–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cánovas, Cristóbal Pagán. 2011. The genesis of the arrows of love: Diachronic conceptual integration in Greek mythology. American Journal of Philology 132: 553–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel. 2010. Space for thinking. In Language, Cognition, and Space, Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds), 453‒78. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James. 2011. A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delgado, José Miguel Jiménez & Vázquez, Rafael Martínez. 2011. Verbos de movimiento virtual en griego antiguo, Emerita 79(2): 277‒300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devine, Andrew & Stephens, Laurence. 2013. Semantics for Latin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
DeWitt, Norman. 1918. Semantic studies in Latin. The Classical Journal 14(3): 185–90.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 2004. Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy. Nordlund: Småskrifter från Institutionen för Nordiska Språk 24: 25‒46.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie (eds). 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2014. Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Jerome. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, Jerome & Narayanan, Srinivas. 2004. Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language 89: 385‒92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Atkins, Beryl. 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Kittay (eds), 75‒102. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fowler, Don. 2000. Roman Constructions: Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun. 2005. How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garbarini, Francesca & Adenzato, Mauro. 2004. At the root of embodied cognition. Brain and Cognition 56(1): 100‒106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García-Jurado, Francisco. 2000. Las metáforas de la vida cotidiana en latín. Proceedings of the Congreso Internacional de Semántica 2: 1571‒84.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds). 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond & Colston, Herbert. 1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6: 347‒78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2005. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, Arthur & Kaschak, Michael. 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9(3): 558‒65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 175], Raymond Gibbs & Gerard Steen (eds), 79‒100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, Beate & Grady, Joseph (eds). 2005. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiaso, Yuchau. 2003. Semantics and cognition. Language and Linguistics 4(2): 197‒205.Google Scholar
Hinds, Stephen. 1998. Allusion and Intertext. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Image-schematic bases of meaning. Semiotic Inquiry 9: 109–118.Google Scholar
. 2007. The Meaning of the Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaster, Robert. 2005. Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Language, Mind and Culture. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 202–51. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Adverbial phrases. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Philip Baldi & Pier Cuzzolin (eds), 19–107. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moon, Rosamund. 2004. On specifying metaphor: An idea and its implementation. International Journal of Lexicography 17(2): 195–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Keith. 2006. Space to time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 199‒244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 1991. The meanings of genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 149-205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oniga, Renato. 2014. Latin: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Palmer, Gary. 1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 2006. The metaphor time as space across languages. In Metonymy-Metaphor Collage, Elżbieta Górska & Günter Radden (eds), 99‒120. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
Roller, Matthew. 2010. Culture-based approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, Alessandro Barchiesi & Walter Scheidel (eds), 234–249. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328‒50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, Eleanor Rosch & Barbara Lloyd (eds), 27‒48. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. 2010. The New Science of the Mind: From Extended Mind to Embodied Phenomenology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansò, A. 2014. Cognitive linguistics and Greek. In Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2, Georgios Giannakis (ed.), 308‒311. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Shore, Bradd. 1996. Culture in Mind. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Short, William. 2012. A Roman folk model of the mind. Arethusa 45(1): 109‒47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Getting to the truth. Arion 21(2): 140‒168.Google Scholar
. 2014. Metafora. In Con i Romani: Un’antropologia della cultura antica, Maurizio Bettini & William Short (eds), 329–52. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Fundamentals for a cognitive semantics of Latin. In Psychology and the Classics: A Dialogue of Disciplines, Jeroen Lauwers, Jan Opsomer & Hedwig Schwall (eds), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Viazzo, Paolo. 2000. Introduzione all’antropologia storica. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf. 2004. The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Brian Ross (ed.), 35–62. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Burman, Annie C.
2023. From deceit to pain: Late Latin dolus and the interplay between semantics and analogy. Journal of Latin Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 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.