The Semantics of Grammar
“The semantics of grammar” presents a radically semantic approach to syntax and morphology. It offers a methodology which makes it possible to demonstrate, on an empirical basis, that syntax is neither “autonomous” nor “arbitrary”, but that it follows from “semantics”. It is shown that every grammatical construction encodes a certain semantic structure, which can be revealed and rigorously stated, so that the meanings encoded in grammar can be compared in a precise and illuminating way, within one language and across language boundaries. The author develops a semantic metalanguage based on lexical universals or near-universals (and, ultimately, on a system of universal semantic primitives), and shows that the same semantic metalanguage can be used for explicating lexical, grammatical and pragmatic aspects of language and thus offers a method for an integrated linguistic description based on semantic foundations. Analyzing data from a number of different languages (including English, Russian and Japanese) the author explores the notion of ethnosyntax and, via semantics, links syntax and morphology with culture. She attemps to demonstrate that the use of a semantic metalanguage based on lexical universals makes it possible to rephrase the Humboldt-Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in such a way that it can be tested and treated as a program for empirical research.
[Studies in Language Companion Series, 18] 1988. x, 617 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
|
Introduction
|
|
|
1. Language and meaning
|
1
|
|
2. Grammatical semantics
|
3
|
|
3. ‘Autonomous syntax’: an illustration
|
4
|
|
4. The need for a semantic metalanguage
|
7
|
|
5. The need for an integrated linguistic description
|
8
|
|
6. The proposed semantic metalanguage
|
9
|
|
7. The idea of ‘ethno-grammar’
|
12
|
|
8. The philosophy of grammar
|
14
|
|
9. Universals of grammatical semantics
|
15
|
|
10. By their fruits shall ye know them
|
19
|
|
Part 1: The semantics of syntax
|
|
|
1. The semantics of English complementation in a cross-linguistic perspective
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
23
|
|
2. TO and ‘wanting’
|
27
|
|
3. TO and opinion
|
45
|
|
4. ING and time
|
59
|
|
5. TO, ING and aspectuals
|
77
|
|
6. TO and emotion
|
98
|
|
7. FOR TO versus TO
|
111
|
|
8. THAT and knowledge
|
132
|
|
9. The subjunctive: a cross-linguistic perspective
|
140
|
|
10. Conclusion
|
161
|
|
Note
|
168
|
|
2. Ethno-syntax and the philosophy of grammar
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
169
|
|
2. Bodily actions and events
|
171
|
|
3. The good/bad dichotomy
|
210
|
|
4. The unknown
|
223
|
|
5. Concluding remark
|
233
|
|
Notes
|
234
|
|
3. The semantics of causative constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
237
|
|
2. Japanese
|
238
|
|
3. English
|
240
|
|
4. Hindi
|
242
|
|
5. ‘Indirect causation’ in English and in French
|
244
|
|
6. Italian
|
246
|
|
7. ‘Indirect causation’ in Russian
|
248
|
|
8. Causation in grammar: towards a semantic typology of grammatical systems
|
249
|
|
4. The Japanese ‘adversative’ passive in a typological context (Are grammatical categories vague or multiply polysemous?)
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
257
|
|
2. Main-verb passives
|
262
|
|
3. Some cross-linguistic comparisons
|
278
|
|
4. Conclusion
|
286
|
|
Summary of Japanese constructions
|
289
|
|
5. Why can you have a drink when you can't *have an eat?
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
293
|
|
2. Periphrastic verbal construction with have defined
|
295
|
|
3. The over-all semantic invariant of the have a V construction
|
297
|
|
4. Subtypes of the have a V construction
|
303
|
|
5. Have a fall
|
336
|
|
6. Have a V versus take a V
|
337
|
|
7. Comparable constructions in other languages
|
341
|
|
8. Conclusion
|
343
|
|
Notes
|
350
|
|
Summary of contruction subtypes
|
352
|
|
6. The semantics of ‘internal dative’ in English
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
359
|
|
2. Semantic constraints on the ‘internal dative’ construction
|
360
|
|
3. Semantic subtypes
|
364
|
|
4. Apparent exceptions
|
372
|
|
5. The semantic core
|
374
|
|
6. The semantic basis of transitivity
|
375
|
|
7. Three participants on the stage: but how many in the limelight?
|
375
|
|
8. A semantic common denominator
|
383
|
|
9. One semantic invariant or eight distinct subtypes?
|
385
|
|
Summary of English internal dative constructions
|
386
|
|
Part 2: The semantics of morphology
|
|
|
7. The meaning of a case: a study of the Polish dative
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
391
|
|
2. Polish datives with external causes
|
393
|
|
3. Datives without external causes
|
415
|
|
4. Conclusion
|
426
|
|
Summary of Polish dative constructions
|
427
|
|
8. The semantics of case marking
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
435
|
|
2. The Russian accusative case
|
437
|
|
3. The Russian ‘partitive’
|
438
|
|
4. The Russian genitive plural
|
440
|
|
5. The genitive marking of the accusative in Polish
|
447
|
|
6. The nominative plural in Polish
|
455
|
|
7. Conclusion
|
459
|
|
9. What's in a noun? (Or: how do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?)
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
463
|
|
2. Description versus categorization
|
466
|
|
3. The notion of ‘kind’
|
470
|
|
4. Semantic nouniness and syntactic nouniness
|
474
|
|
5. Core adjectival concepts
|
477
|
|
6. Where do nouns ‘come from’?
|
481
|
|
7. What are adjectives for?
|
483
|
|
8. Final illustration
|
488
|
|
9. Concluding remarks
|
491
|
|
Definitions
|
493
|
|
Notes
|
496
|
|
10. Oats and wheat: mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
499
|
|
2. Preliminary discussion
|
501
|
|
3. The logic of names of fruits and vegetables in Russian
|
503
|
|
4. Water (names of homogeneous substances)
|
506
|
|
5. Chocolate and chocolates (solids with a double status)
|
509
|
|
6. Crockery (names of heterogeneous classes of objects)
|
510
|
|
7. Scissors (names of ‘dual objects’)
|
514
|
|
8. A grain of rice (substances with a minimal unit)
|
516
|
|
9. Hair, noodles and apples (‘singularia mostly’, ‘pluralia mostly’ and ‘edible objects’)
|
520
|
|
10. Oats (names of substances composed of particles and limited in quantity)
|
527
|
|
11. Guts and woods (names of body parts and places)
|
535
|
|
12. Leftovers (names of heterogenous groups of objects and/or ‘stuffs’)
|
539
|
|
13. Clothing versus clothes
|
542
|
|
14. Fruit versus vegetables
|
548
|
|
15. Conclusions
|
553
|
|
Summary of class meanings
|
555
|
|
Conclusion
|
561
|
|
Bibliography
|
563
|
|
Subject and name index
|
585
|
|
Index of lexical items
|
597
|
Cited by
Cited by other publications
No author info given
2003. Book Reviews.
Linguistic Typology 7:2 
No author info given
2015.
In Demonstratives and Possessives with Attitude [Human Cognitive Processing, 51],
No author info given
2015.
In Semantics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 168],
No author info given
2015. Expressing the source of dispossession acts in French and Spanish: A contrastive study ofvolerandrobar.
Languages in Contrast 15:1 ► pp. 102 ff.
No author info given
2016.
In A Cognitive Grammar of Japanese Clause Structure [Human Cognitive Processing, 53],
No author info given
2018.
In Compliments and Positive Assessments [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 289],
No author info given
2018.
In Landscape and Culture – Cross-linguistic Perspectives [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 9],
No author info given
2018.
In Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 75],
No author info given
2018.
In Tag Questions in Conversation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 83],
No author info given
2019.
In Reference Point and Case [Human Cognitive Processing, 68],
No author info given
2019.
In Semantic Plurality [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 349],
No author info given
2020.
In Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science [Language Faculty and Beyond, 16],
No author info given
2020. Intersecting location and possession.
Linguistic Variation
Achard-Bayle, Guy
2000. Référents évolutifs et point de vue.
Linx :43 ► pp. 121 ff.
Achard-Bayle, Guy
2007. Les réalités conceptuelles et leur ancrage matériel.
Corela :HS-6
Achard-Bayle, Guy & Amélie Cure
2008. Trivial Pursuit.
Pratiques :139-140 ► pp. 29 ff.
Acquaviva, Paolo
2014.
In Morphology and Meaning [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 327],
► pp. 49 ff.
Acquaviva, Paolo
2016. Structures for plurals.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 217 ff.
ACUÑA-FARIÑA, JUAN CARLOS
2009. Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase.
English Language and Linguistics 13:3 ► pp. 453 ff.
Agbo, Maduabuchi Sennen
2014. Causativity in Ìgbò Personal Names.
Journal of Universal Language 15:2 ► pp. 1 ff.
Ameka, Felix
1990. The grammatical packaging of experiencers in ewe: A study in the semantics of syntax.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 139 ff.
Ameka, Felix K.
1988. The grammatical coding of the terminal viewpoint of situations in Ewe: A semantic perspective.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 8:2 ► pp. 185 ff.
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2009.
In Differential Subject Marking [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 72],
► pp. 151 ff.
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2017. Multiple ergatives.
Studies in Language 41:3 ► pp. 717 ff.
Arnaud, Pierre J. L.
2010. Judging the Degree of Adjectivization of English Nouns: An Investigation of the Discourse Behaviour of a Sample of Frequent Premodifier Nouns.
English Studies 91:3 ► pp. 303 ff.
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. & Nora Boneh
2015. Reconsidering the Emergence of Non-core Dative Constructions in Modern Hebrew.
Journal of Jewish Languages 3:1-2 ► pp. 309 ff.
BARTOLOTTA, ANNAMARIA
2009. Root lexical features and inflectional marking of tense in Proto-Indo-European.
Journal of Linguistics 45:3 ► pp. 505 ff.
Belyaeva-Standen, Yelena
2003. The functional–pragmatic field of possibility in Russian: meaning and structure.
Language Sciences 25:3 ► pp. 239 ff.
Blake, Barry J.
2001.
In Case,
BLYTH, CARL
1997. A Constructivist Approach to Grammar: Teaching Teachers to Teach Aspect.
The Modern Language Journal 81:1 ► pp. 50 ff.
Bonadonna, Maria Francesca
2020. Using lexical functions to describe adjectives in terminography.
Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 26:1 ► pp. 7 ff.
Boucher, Paul
2018.
In A Linguistic Handbook of French for Translators and Language Students,
Boulonnais, Dominique
2013. AT et la sémantique des prépositions.
Anglophonia :17 (34) ► pp. 9 ff.
Bugenhagen, Robert D.
1990. Experiential constructions in Mangap‐Mbula∗.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 183 ff.
Burridge, Kate
2015.
In Language Structure and Environment [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 6],
► pp. 45 ff.
Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman
2016. Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 391 ff.
Caldwell, T. Price, Oliver Cresswell & Robert J. Stainton
2018.
In Discourse, Structure and Linguistic Choice [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 101],
► pp. 45 ff.
Calude, Andreea S.
2017. Clausal Complements in Native and Learner Spoken English: A Corpus-Based Study with LINDSEI and VICOLSE.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 37:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
CALUIANU, DANIELA
2004. Emotions across Linguistic Theories (A. Wierzbicka, Emotions across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals).
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 21:1 ► pp. 144 ff.
Carlier, Anne
1996. ‘Les gosses ça se lève tôt le matin’: l'interprétation générique du syntagme nominal disloqué au moyen de ce ou ça.
Journal of French Language Studies 6:2 ► pp. 133 ff.
Carlier, Anne
2016. The capricious evolution of the indefinite plural articleunsand its relationship with lexical plurality in medieval French.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 309 ff.
Chelliah, Shobhana L. & Willem J. de Reuse
2010.
In Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork,
► pp. 279 ff.
Chen, Yue
2019. A construction-based account of the synchrony and diachrony of the Chinese middle construction.
International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 6:2 ► pp. 260 ff.
Condon, Nora & Peter Kelly
2002. Does Cognitive Linguistics have anything to offer English language learners in their efforts to master phrasal verbs?.
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 137-138 ► pp. 205 ff.
Corbett, Greville G.
2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties.
Morphology 29:1 ► pp. 51 ff.
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004.
In Cognitive Linguistics,
Cuffari, Elena C.
2014. Keep meaning in conversational coordination.
Frontiers in Psychology 5
Culpeper, Jonathan & Michael Haugh
2020. The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English.
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict ► pp. 1 ff.
Curnow, Timothy Jowan
1993. Semantics of Spanish causatives involvinghacer.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 13:2 ► pp. 165 ff.
Cuyckens, Hubert & Frauke D’hoedt
2015.
In Perspectives on Complementation,
► pp. 77 ff.
D'Hertefelt, Sarah
2017.
In Imperatives and Directive Strategies [Studies in Language Companion Series, 184],
Dalmas, Martine, Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij, Dirk Goldhahn & Uwe Quasthof
2015. Bewertung durch Adjektive. Ansätze einer korpusgestützten Untersuchung zur Synonymie.
Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 45:1 ► pp. 12 ff.
Davidse, Kristin
2018.
In The Noun Phrase in English [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 246],
► pp. 11 ff.
Davidse, Kristin & Lobke Ghesquière
2016. Content-purport, content-substance and structure: focusingmereandmerely.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48:1 ► pp. 85 ff.
Davidse, Kristin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
2008. Introduction: The realization of interpersonal meaning.
<i>WORD</i> 59:1-2 ► pp. 3 ff.
Davidse, Kristin, Lieven Vandelanotte, Caroline Gentens & Lobke Ghesquière
2014.
In Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 63],
► pp. 1 ff.
De Smet, Hendrik & Hubert Cuyckens
2005. Pragmatic Strengthening and the Meaning of Complement Constructions.
Journal of English Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
DE SMET, HENDRIK & LIESBET HEYVAERT
2011. The meaning of the English present participle.
English Language and Linguistics 15:3 ► pp. 473 ff.
DE SMET, HENDRIK & EVELYN VANCAYZEELE
2015. Like a rolling stone: the changing use of English premodifying present participles.
English Language and Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 131 ff.
de Stadler, Leon
1995. The Indirect Object in Afrikaans.
South African Journal of Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 26 ff.
de Stadler, Leon G.
1995. The indirect object in Afrikaans: a schematic network.
South African Journal of Linguistics 13:3 ► pp. 100 ff.
Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries
2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 192 ff.
Divjak, Dagmar & Laura A. Janda
2008. Ways of attenuating agency in Russian.
Transactions of the Philological Society 106:2 ► pp. 138 ff.
Dor, Daniel & Eva Jablonka
2001. From Cultural Selection to Genetic Selection: A Framework for the Evolution of Language.
Selection 1:1-3 ► pp. 33 ff.
Driem, George Van
1991. Tangut verbal agreement and the patient category in Tibeto-Burman.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 54:3 ► pp. 520 ff.
Driem, George Van
1993. Language change, conjugational morphology and the Sino-Tibetanurheimat.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 26:1 ► pp. 45 ff.
Duffley, Patrick & Maryse Arseneau
2012. Tense and control interpretations in gerund-participle and to-infinitive complement constructions with verbs of risk.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 57:1 ► pp. 31 ff.
Duffley, Patrick J.
2000. Gerund versus Infinitive as Complement of Transitive Verbs in English.
Journal of English Linguistics 28:3 ► pp. 221 ff.
Duffley, Patrick J. & Jean-François Joubert
1999. The Gerund and the Infinitive with the Verbs intend, mean, propose and their Close Synonyms.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 44:3 ► pp. 251 ff.
Durst-Andersen, Per
2000. The English progressive as picture description.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 32:1 ► pp. 45 ff.
Durst-Andersen, Per & Elena Lorentzen
2017. Pure case and prepositional case in Russian.
Russian Linguistics 41:2 ► pp. 177 ff.
Egan, Thomas
2015.
In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
► pp. 1 ff.
Egan, Thomas & Hildegunn Dirdal
2017.
In Cross-linguistic Correspondences [Studies in Language Companion Series, 191],
► pp. 1 ff.
Endresen, Anna, Laura A. Janda, Robert Reynolds & Francis M. Tyers
2016. Who needs particles? A challenge to the classification of particles as a part of speech in Russian.
Russian Linguistics 40:2 ► pp. 103 ff.
Fieder, Nora, Lyndsey Nickels, Britta Biedermann & Wendy Best
2014. From “some butter” to “a butter”: An investigation of mass and count representation and processing.
Cognitive Neuropsychology 31:4 ► pp. 313 ff.
Fieder, Nora, Lyndsey Nickels & Britta Biedermann
2014. Representation and processing of mass and count nouns: a review.
Frontiers in Psychology 5
Fieder, Nora, Lyndsey Nickels, Trudy Krajenbrink & Britta Biedermann
2017. Garlic and Ginger are not like Apples and Oranges: Effects of Mass/Count Information on the Production of Noun Phrases in English.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology ► pp. 17470218.2016.1 ff.
Fortescue, Michael
1994. How ‘concrete’` is West Greenlandic?.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27:1 ► pp. 131 ff.
Fortescue, Michael
2002. Report to the elders (A discourse on semantic relativity).
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 34:1 ► pp. 107 ff.
Fortuin, Egbert & Ico Davids
2013. Subordinate clause prolepsis in Russian.
Russian Linguistics 37:2 ► pp. 125 ff.
Fortuin, Egbert & Hetty Geerdink-Verkoren
2019.
In Universal Semantic Syntax,
Franceschi, Daniele
2014. Licensing and blocking factors in the use of BEGIN verbs: A lexical-constructional and pragmatic analysis.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 304 ff.
Franco, Ludovico, Benedetta Baldi & Leonardo M. Savoia
2020. Collectivizers in Italian (and beyond). The interplay between collectivizing and evaluating morphology (and the Div paradox).
Studia Linguistica 74:1 ► pp. 2 ff.
Gardelle, Laure
2016. Five crew, how many clergy : pourquoi certains noms collectifs peuvent-ils servir à nommer des membres ?.
Anglophonia :22
Gardelle, Laure
2016. Lexical plurals for aggregates of discrete entities in English.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 355 ff.
Gardelle, Laure
2017. Are superordinates such as furniture and belongings collective nouns?.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 40:2 ► pp. 150 ff.
Gardelle, Laure
2018. Are there any collective nouns among lexical plurals in English?.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 63:1 ► pp. 25 ff.
George, Gloria
1999. Sexual orientation and the Oxford Dictionary of Slang.
English Today 15:3 ► pp. 52 ff.
Gillon, Brendan S.
1999.
In Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons [Text, Speech and Language Technology, 10],
► pp. 19 ff.
Girard-Gillet, Geneviève
2016. Aspectual Verbs: a study of cease and continue.
Anglophonia :22
Gladkova, Anna
2012.
In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
Gladkova, Anna
2014.
In Multilingual Cognition and Language Use [Human Cognitive Processing, 44],
► pp. 121 ff.
Goddard, Cliff
1990. The lexical semantics of “good feelings” in Yankunytjatjara.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 257 ff.
GODDARD, CLIFF
1995. Lucy's “grammatical categories and cognition”.
American Ethnologist 22:3 ► pp. 617 ff.
Goddard, Cliff
1997. Semantic primes and grammatical categories∗.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Goddard, Cliff
1997. The semantics of coming and going.
Pragmatics 7:2 ► pp. 147 ff.
Goddard, Cliff
2003.
In Contrastive Analysis in Language,
► pp. 13 ff.
Goddard, Cliff
2017.
In International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography,
► pp. 1 ff.
Goddard, Cliff, Keith Allan, K.J. Franklin, Susanne Döpke, Elizabeth Pearce, Kate Burridge & Jean Mulder
1995. Reviews.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 95 ff.
Goldberg, Adele E.
2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations.
Cognitive Linguistics 13:4
Golebiowski, Zosia & Anthony J. Liddicoat
2002. The interaction of discipline and culture in academic writing.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 59 ff.
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2018. Taming iconicity in the Spanish and Italian translations of Shakespeare’s Sonnets.
English Text Construction 11:1 ► pp. 105 ff.
Goy, Anna
2002.
In Spatial Language,
► pp. 121 ff.
Gwilliams, Laura & Lise Fontaine
2015. Indeterminacy in process type classification.
Functional Linguistics 2:1
GÜNTHER, CHRISTINE, SVEN KOTOWSKI & INGO PLAG
2020. Phrasal compounds can have adjectival heads: evidence from English.
English Language and Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 75 ff.
Hamawand, Zeki
2004. Determinants of Complement Clause Variation in English.
English Studies 85:5 ► pp. 451 ff.
Harder, Peter
2007. Shaping the interactive flowlanguage as input, process and product.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 39:1 ► pp. 7 ff.
Heltoft, Lars
2014.
In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69],
► pp. 203 ff.
Hens, Gregor
1997. Constructional Semantics in German: The Dative of Inaction.
American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9:2 ► pp. 191 ff.
Hernández-Paricio, Francisco
1994. La négation et l’hypothèse inaccusative.
Linx :5 ► pp. 91 ff.
Higginbotham, D. Jeffery & David P. Wilkins
2006. The Short Story of Frametalker: An Interactive AAC Device.
Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication 15:1 ► pp. 18 ff.
Hlebec, Boris
2015. Lexical Definitions of Some Performative Verbs.
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 50:1 ► pp. 27 ff.
Hoffmann, Thomas
2019.
In English Comparative Correlatives,
Holmes, Janet, Koenraad Kuiper, Alan R. Libert, Bert Peeters & Brian Taylor
1996. Reviews.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 16:2 ► pp. 229 ff.
Houben, Jan E. M.
2008.
In Sanskrit Computational Linguistics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5406],
► pp. 6 ff.
Hudson, Richard, Andrew Rosta, Jasper Holmes & Nikolas Gisborne
1996. Synonyms and syntax.
Journal of Linguistics 32:2 ► pp. 439 ff.
Høeg Müller, Henrik
2014. Lexical coding vs. syntactic marking of homogeneity: Evidence from Spanish and Danish.
Studies in Language 38:4 ► pp. 896 ff.
Iwasaki, Noriko, David P. Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco
2010. Does the grammatical count/mass distinction affect semantic representations? Evidence from experiments in English and Japanese.
Language and Cognitive Processes 25:2 ► pp. 189 ff.
IWATA, SEIZI
2006. Where Do Constructions Come From? (W. Croft, Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective).
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 23:2 ► pp. 493 ff.
Jamrozik, Anja & Dedre Gentner
2015. Well-Hidden Regularities: Abstract Uses ofinandonRetain an Aspect of Their Spatial Meaning.
Cognitive Science 39:8 ► pp. 1881 ff.
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna
1995. Typology of contrastive studies: specialisation, progress and applications.
Language Teaching 28:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M.
1995.
In Handbook of Pragmatics,
► pp. 561 ff.
Junker, Marie-Odile & Louise Blacksmith
2006. Are There Emotional Universals? Evidence from the Native American Language East Cree.
Culture & Psychology 12:3 ► pp. 275 ff.
Kaheraoui, Malika
2008. Sur la structure argumentale de la forme faire + infinitif.
Corela :6-1
Kaleta, Agnieszka
2016.
In Studies in Lexicogrammar [Human Cognitive Processing, 54],
► pp. 143 ff.
Kaluga, Michał
2018. Nice to Meet You or Nice Meeting You: Complementation Patterns of Emotive Adjectives.
Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies :27/2 ► pp. 47 ff.
Kaneko, Makoto, F. Neveu, B. Harmegnies, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2018. La détermination et la pluralisation : l’exigence de l’uniformité référentielle.
SHS Web of Conferences 46 ► pp. 12010 ff.
Karlsson, Susanna
2020.
In Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication,
► pp. 223 ff.
Kemmerer, David
2000. Grammatically relevant and grammatically irrelevant features of verb meaning can be independently impaired.
Aphasiology 14:10 ► pp. 997 ff.
KIM, HYUNWOO & YANGON RAH
2016. Effects of Verb Semantics and Proficiency in Second Language Use of Constructional Knowledge.
The Modern Language Journal 100:3 ► pp. 716 ff.
King, John T.
2002. Marked transitive scenarios and archaic biactinal agreement morphology in Dhimal.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 34:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
Kintsch, Walter
2001. Predication.
Cognitive Science 25:2 ► pp. 173 ff.
Kliffer, Michael D.
1999. The Western Romance drift away from external dative possessors.
<i>WORD</i> 50:2 ► pp. 155 ff.
Kluender, Robert & Marta Kutas
1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon.
Language and Cognitive Processes 8:4 ► pp. 573 ff.
Koontz-Garboden, Andrew
2005.
In Yearbook of Morphology 2005 [Yearbook of Morphology, ],
► pp. 83 ff.
Korte, Barbara, Klaus Peter Müller & Josef Schmied
1997.
In Einführung in die Anglistik,
► pp. 244 ff.
Korte, Barbara, Klaus Peter Müller & Josef Schmied
2004.
In Einführung in die Anglistik,
► pp. 269 ff.
Kortlandt, Frederik
1992. On the meaning of the Japanese passive.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 24:1 ► pp. 97 ff.
Koselak, Arkadiusz
2003. La sémantique naturelle d’Anna Wierzbicka et les enjeux interculturels.
Questions de communication :4 ► pp. 83 ff.
Koutsoukos, Nikos, Kristel Van Goethem & Hendrik De Smet
2018. Asymmetries, mismatches and construction grammar.
Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 123 ff.
Kudrnáčová, Naděžda
2019. Contrastive semantics of human locomotion verbs.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 53 ff.
Kwak, Eun-Joo
2014. Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Semantic Countability.
Journal of Universal Language 15:2 ► pp. 55 ff.
LACASSAIN-LAGOIN, Christelle
2018. On the margins of perception - TO-clauses: a standard construction of perception verbs?.
E-rea :15.2
Lammert, Marie
2016. Lexical plurals through meronymy and hyperonymy.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 335 ff.
Lauwers, Peter
2016. Les pluriels lexicaux dits « massifs » face au conditionneur universel.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 272 ff.
Lauwers, Peter & Marie Lammert
2016. Introduction.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 207 ff.
Ldrup, Helge
2008. Raising to object in Norwegian and the derived object constraint.
Studia Linguistica 62:2 ► pp. 155 ff.
Lemghari, El Mustapha, F. Neveu, G. Bergounioux, M.-H. Côté, J.-M. Fournier, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2016. Quand le nom massif et / ou comptable change de référent : recatégorisation, décryptage métonymique et faits de polysémie lexicale.
SHS Web of Conferences 27 ► pp. 12014 ff.
Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Belsitzman & Wendy Sandler
2016. Taking meaning in hand.
Sign Language & Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 37 ff.
Levisen, Carsten
2019.
In Languages – Cultures – Worldviews,
► pp. 319 ff.
LIAMKINA, OLGA & MARIANNA RYSHINA-PANKOVA
2012. Grammar Dilemma: Teaching Grammar as a Resource for Making Meaning.
The Modern Language Journal 96:2 ► pp. 270 ff.
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2004. Grammar as a Feature of Text Construction.
Written Communication 21:4 ► pp. 316 ff.
Lieber, Rochelle
2001.
In Morphology and Lexical Semantics,
Lyashevskaya, Olga
2015. Corpus-Based Profiles of Russian Nouns: From Grammatical Number to Lexical Semantics.
SSRN Electronic Journal
Majid, Asifa
2012. Current Emotion Research in the Language Sciences.
Emotion Review 4:4 ► pp. 432 ff.
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar, Elif Arıca Akkök & Yeşim Aksan
2018. Türk İşaret Dilinde Eylemler: Bilişsel Dibilimsel Bir Yaklaşım.
Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi ► pp. 119 ff.
Maldonado, Ricardo
2002. Objective and subjective datives.
Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Martínez-Vázquez, Montserrat
2018. I’m loving it!A Corpus-Based Study of the Progress oflove.
Journal of English Linguistics 46:2 ► pp. 140 ff.
Matushansky, Ora
2015. The Other Francis Bacon: On Non-BARE Proper Names.
Erkenntnis 80:S2 ► pp. 335 ff.
Mayer, Rolf
1992. To win and lose: Linguistic aspects of prospect theory.
Language and Cognitive Processes 7:1 ► pp. 23 ff.
Maynard, Senko K.
1997. Synergistic strategies in grammar: A case of nominalization and commentary predicate in Japanese.
<i>WORD</i> 48:1 ► pp. 15 ff.
McGregor, William B.
2003. A Fundamental misconception of modern linguistics.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 35:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
McGregor, William B.
2008. Complementation as interpersonal grammar.
<i>WORD</i> 59:1-2 ► pp. 25 ff.
McKoon, Gail & Roger Ratcliff
2003. Meaning through syntax: Language comprehension and the reduced relative clause construction..
Psychological Review 110:3 ► pp. 490 ff.
Mignot, Elise
2010. Exploitation stylistique du processus de composition nominale en anglais contemporain.
Lexis :5
Mignot, Élise
2006. Les adjectifs : entre déterminant et nom.
Études anglaises 59:4 ► pp. 453 ff.
Mosel, Ulrike
2017. Teop – an Oceanic language with multifunctional verbs, nouns and adjectives.
Studies in Language 41:2 ► pp. 255 ff.
Mostovaia, Anna D.
1995. The semantics of the noun‐focused metaphor in Russian.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 69 ff.
Mueller Gathercole, Virginia C., Enlli Mon Thomas & Dylan Evans
2000. What's in a noun? Welsh-, English-, and Spanish- speaking children see it differently.
First Language 20:58 ► pp. 055 ff.
NEMOTO, NORIKO
1998. ON THE POLYSEMY OF DITRANSITIVE SAVE: THE ROLE OF FRAME SEMANTICS IN CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 15:0 ► pp. 219 ff.
NEY, JAMES W. & BETHYL A. PEARSON
1990. Connectionism as a Model of Language Learning: Parallels in Foreign Language Teaching.
The Modern Language Journal 74:4 ► pp. 474 ff.
Nickels, Lyndsey, Britta Biedermann, Nora Fieder & Niels O. Schiller
2015. The lexical-syntactic representation of number.
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30:3 ► pp. 287 ff.
NOMURA, MASUHIRO
1993. THE SEMANTICS OF THE CONTENT CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 10:0 ► pp. 184 ff.
Noël, Dirk
1997. The choice between infinitives and that-clauses after believe.
English Language and Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 271 ff.
OHORI, TOSHIO
1994. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information, by William Croft, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991, xiii+331pp.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 11:0 ► pp. 318 ff.
OKUDA, MASANOBU
1998. THE MAKE-CAUSATIVE IN ENGLISH: ITS STRUCTURE AND MEANING.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 15:0 ► pp. 195 ff.
Ortiz Ciscomani, Rosa María
2020.
In Historical Linguistics 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 350],
► pp. 66 ff.
Paducheva, E.
2009. Event structure: Taxonomy, semantic roles, aspect, causation.
Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics 43:3 ► pp. 196 ff.
Paillard, Denis & Владимир Александрович Плунгян
1993. Об Одном Типе Конструкций С Повтором Глагола в Русском Яэыке.
Russian Linguistics 17:3 ► pp. 263 ff.
Palmer, F. R.
1990. The semantics of grammar.
Journal of Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 223 ff.
Paszenda, Joanna
2017.
In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58],
► pp. 241 ff.
Pavlovic, Vladan
2019. Massive corpora and models of cross‑cultural communication styles in Cognitive Linguitics.
Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 29 ff.
Peeters, Bert
1990.
Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Volume 1: Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes
13. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 1987. Pp. x + 233. US$39.95 (relié), $17.95 (non-relié)..
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 35:1 ► pp. 96 ff.
Peeters, Bert
1991.
Michael Herslund. Le datif en français. Bibliothèque de l’Information grammaticale
14. Paris: Editions Peeters. 1988. Pp. 364. FF 250,–..
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 36:1 ► pp. 94 ff.
Peeters, Bert
1991. More About Axiological Fields.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 36:2 ► pp. 113 ff.
Peeters, Bert
1992. Cervoni, Jean, La Préposition: Etude sémantique et pragmatique. (Champs linguistiques.) Paris/Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot, 1991, 309 pp..
Journal of French Language Studies 2:2 ► pp. 267 ff.
Peeters, Bert
1994. Syntax and Human Experience: la perspective de Nicolas Ruwet.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 39:3 ► pp. 225 ff.
Pennec, Blandine
2014. Phénomènes de discordance entre morphologie et syntaxe : de la zizanie dans le collectif !.
Corela :6-2
Perini, Mário A.
2019.
In Thematic Relations,
► pp. 91 ff.
Perini, Mário A.
2019.
In Thematic Relations,
► pp. 149 ff.
Phindane, Pule Alexis
2015. Verbal Alternations in Sesotho: A Case of Lexical Semantics.
Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology 6:2 ► pp. 303 ff.
Pinson, Mathilde
2015. On the polysemy of help.
Lexis :9
Pinto, Alexandra
2017.
In National Identity and Europe in Times of Crisis,
► pp. 187 ff.
PRIOR, ANAT, JUDITH F. KROLL & BRIAN MACWHINNEY
2013. Translation ambiguity but not word class predicts translation performance.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16:2 ► pp. 458 ff.
Prior, Anat, Brian MacWhinney & Judith F. Kroll
2007. Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity.
Behavior Research Methods 39:4 ► pp. 1029 ff.
Raskin, Victor, Salvatore Attardo & Donalee H. Attardo
1994. Augmenting formal semantic representation for NLP: The story of SMEARR.
Machine Translation 9:2 ► pp. 81 ff.
Riemer, Nick
2006. Reductive Paraphrase and Meaning: A Critique of Wierzbickian Semantics.
Linguistics and Philosophy 29:3 ► pp. 347 ff.
Rips, Lance J. & Susan J. Hespos
2019. Concepts of objects and substances in language.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26:4 ► pp. 1238 ff.
Rotge, Wilfrid
2009. Plurality in English and other languages: does it add up?.
Anglophonia :13 (26) ► pp. 101 ff.
Rudanko, Juhani
2014.
In Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 63],
► pp. 223 ff.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida
1996.
In Handbook of Pragmatics,
► pp. 1 ff.
Sadow, Lauren & Kerry Mullan
2020.
In Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication,
► pp. 13 ff.
Sanromán Vilas, Begoña
2017. From the heavy to the light verb.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 40:2 ► pp. 228 ff.
Sato, Yoshiaki & Shunsuke Nakamura
2018.
In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
► pp. 1 ff.
Schooneveldt, John
2019. Ecology in Context: A New Conceptual Frame.
Human Ecology Review 25:1 ► pp. 131 ff.
Shopen, Tim
1993. William Frawley, Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992. Pp. xvii+533..
Journal of Linguistics 29:1 ► pp. 206 ff.
Smet, Hendrik De
2007. For … to-infinitives as verbal complements in Late Modern and Present-Day English: Between motivation and change.
English Studies 88:1 ► pp. 67 ff.
Smith, Chris
2012. Double whammy! The dysphemistic euphemism implied in unVables such as u.
Lexis :7
Snoj, Jerica
2015. Metaforična pomenotvornost z vidika sintagmatike.
Jezikoslovni zapiski 17:2
Song, Sooho
2018.
In Second Language Acquisition as a Mode-Switching Process,
► pp. 37 ff.
Song, Sooho
2018.
In Second Language Acquisition as a Mode-Switching Process,
► pp. 53 ff.
Szcześniak, Konrad
2019. Meaning hides in the confusion of the construction.
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 58 ff.
Szymańska, Izabela
2011.
In New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ],
► pp. 215 ff.
Tanaka, Shigenori
2018.
In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
► pp. 1 ff.
Taylor, John R.
1993. Possessives and the Learnability Problem.
South African Journal of Linguistics 11:sup16 ► pp. 1 ff.
TOMOZAWA, HIROTAKA
2003. ASPECTS OF THE SEMANTICS OF THE ENGLISH PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTION.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 20:2 ► pp. 493 ff.
Tsang, Art
2017. Judgement of countability and plural marking in English by native and non-native English speakers.
Language Awareness 26:4 ► pp. 343 ff.
VAN LINDEN, AN
2010. The rise of theto-infinitive: evidence from adjectival complementation.
English Language and Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 19 ff.
Van linden, An & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives.
Journal of Pragmatics 43:1 ► pp. 150 ff.
Vanparys, Johan, Carole Zimmer, Xinghua Li & Peter Kelly
1997. Some salient and persistent difficulties encountered by Chinese and Francophone students in the learning of English vocabulary.
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 115-116 ► pp. 137 ff.
Vergaro, Carla
2018. “And the Rabbi Begins the Benediction … ”: Declarative Shell Nouns in English.
English Studies 99:8 ► pp. 817 ff.
Vergaro, Carla & Hans-Jörg Schmid
2017. Do the meanings of abstract nouns correlate with the meanings of their complementation patterns?.
Pragmatics & Cognition 24:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
VERMOTE, TIMOTHEUS
2014. Entre système et usage en discours: nouvelles perspectives sur la localisation de l'opposition massif/comptable. Le cas des noms de fruits et de légumes.
Journal of French Language Studies 24:3 ► pp. 403 ff.
Vesterinen, Rainer
2013. Instructions or dominion?.
Pragmatics & Cognition 21:2 ► pp. 359 ff.
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta
2009. Phonotactic constraints in cognitive phonology1.
Corela :7-1
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta
2009. The phoneme in cognitive phonology: episodic memories of both meaningful and meaningless units?.
CogniTextes :2
WADA, NAOAKI
2009. THE PRESENT PROGRESSIVE WITH FUTURE TIME REFERENCE VS. BE GOING TO: IS DOC BROWN GOING BACK TO THE FUTURE BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO RECONSTRUCT IT?.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 26:1 ► pp. 96 ff.
Watanabe, Akira
2010. Vague Quantity, Numerals, and Natural Numbers.
Syntax 13:1 ► pp. 37 ff.
Wiedenhof, Jeroen
2015.
In A Grammar of Mandarin,
Wierzbicka, Anna
1990. Antitotalitarian language in Poland: Some mechanisms of linguistic self-defense.
Language in Society 19:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1990. The semantics of emotions:Fearand its relatives in English.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 359 ff.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1991. Japanese key words and core cultural values.
Language in Society 20:3 ► pp. 333 ff.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1991. The semantics of grammar: a reply to Professor Palmer.
Journal of Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 495 ff.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1992. Defining Emotion Concepts.
Cognitive Science 16:4 ► pp. 539 ff.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1992. Talking about emotions: Semantics, culture, and cognition.
Cognition and Emotion 6:3-4 ► pp. 285 ff.
Willems, Klaas
2016. The universality of categories and meaning: a Coserian perspective.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48:1 ► pp. 110 ff.
Willim, Ewa
2020.
In Beyond Emotions in Language [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 263],
Winters, Margaret E.
2013.
In Research on Old French: The State of the Art [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 88],
► pp. 351 ff.
Winters, Margaret E. & Geoffrey S. Nathan
2020.
In Cognitive Linguistics for Linguists [SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, ],
► pp. 27 ff.
Wisniewski, Edward J.
2002.
In Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology,
Wolff, Phillip, Ga-Hyun Jeon & Yu Li
2009. Causers in English, Korean, and Chinese and the individuation of events.
Language and Cognition 1:2 ► pp. 167 ff.
WOLFF, PHILLIP & TATYANA VENTURA
2009. When Russians learn English: How the semantics of causation may change.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12:2 ► pp. 153 ff.
Wong, Jock
2004. Reduplication of nominal modifiers in Singapore English: a semantic and cultural interpretation.
World Englishes 23:3 ► pp. 339 ff.
Wonnacott, Elizabeth
2013.
In The Language Phenomenon [The Frontiers Collection, ],
► pp. 65 ff.
Ye, Zhengdao
2019. The Emergence of Expressible Agency and Irony in Today’s China: A Semantic Explanation of the New Bèi-construction.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 39:1 ► pp. 57 ff.
Yliopisto, Helsingin
1990. ‘пРИжНАкИ’, ‘пРИЧИНы ’ И ‘ОБЩьсНЕНИь’, ИлИ РАжНыЕ пОДхОДы к ИстОлкОВАНИУ ьжыкОВ ых ФАктОВ.
Russian Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 147 ff.
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda van Bergen & Willem B. Hollmann
2019.
In Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax,
Zakrewska, Ewa D.
2015.
In Causation, Permission, and Transfer [Studies in Language Companion Series, 167],
► pp. 227 ff.
Zakrzewska, Ewa
2017.
In Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events [Studies in Language Companion Series, 180],
► pp. 213 ff.
Šipka, Danko
2019.
In Lexical Layers of Identity,
кронгауз, Максим Анисимович
1993. СЕМАНТИКА РУССКОГО ГЛАГОЛА И ЕГО СЛОВООБРАЗОВАТЕЛьН ЫЕ ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ.
Russian Linguistics 17:1 ► pp. 15 ff.
Падучева, Е. В.
1994. Типы каузальных Отношений В Семантической Структуре Лексемы.
Russian Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
ПАДУЧЕВА, ЕЛЕНА ВИКТОРОВНА
1992. О СЕМАНТИЧЕСКОМ ПОДХОДЕ К СИНТАКСИСУ И ГЕНИТИВНОМ СУБЪЕКТЕ ГЛАГОЛА БЬТЬ.
Russian Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 53 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 september 2020. 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.
Subjects
BIC Subject: CF – Linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number: 88019772