Part of
The Typology of Physical Qualities
Edited by Ekaterina Rakhilina, Tatiana Reznikova and Daria Ryzhova
[Typological Studies in Language 133] 2022
► pp. 117160
References (29)
References
Abaev, V. 1995. Izbrannye trudy. Tom II. Obščee i sravnitel’noe jazykoznanie [Selected Works. Volume II. General and Comparative Linguistics]. Vladikavkaz: Ir.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & Lang, E. 1989. Dimensional Terms: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., Chumakina, M. & Corbett, G. G. (eds). 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chirikba, V. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics, P. Muysken (ed), 25–94. Amsterdam, Philadlphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. & Taylor, J. 1988. The conceptualisation of vertical space in English: the case of ‘‘tall’’. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed), 207–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1978. On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, 148–173. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, J. H. Greenberg (ed), 73–113. Cambridge, Massachusets & London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In New Psychology of Language, vol. 2, M. Tomasello (ed), 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(4): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. 1993. “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 217–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., Murphy, M. L., Paradis, C. & Willners, C. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klimov, G. (ed). 1978. Strukturnye obščnosti kavkazskix jazykov [The Structural Affinities Between the Caucasian Languages]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Miestamo, M. 2015. Antonyms and wordlevel negation. Paper presented at Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary anthropology, Leipzig, 2 May 2015.
Kukhto, A., Kozlov, A. & Privizentseva, M. 2016. O real’nosti semantičeskogo pol’a: lexiko-tipologičeskij podxod [On the reality of a semantic field: lexico-typological approach]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XII (1): 522–533.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lang, E. 2001. Spatial dimension terms. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1251–1275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1997. Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1): 98–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. The language of space in Yéli Dnye. In Grammars of Space. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, S. C. Levinson, & D. Wilkins (eds), 157–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. L. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy, and other Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., Willners, C. & Jones, S. 2009. Good and bad opposites: using textual and psycholinguistic techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon 4(3): 380–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 2005. Brain Mechanisms Linking Language and Action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 576–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. 2000. Kognitivnyj analiz predmentyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost’ [Cognitive Analysis of Concrete Nouns: Semantics and Combinability]. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Redei, K. 1986. Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai. Kiadó.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (eds), 225–282. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2006. Shape in grammar revisited. Studies in Language 30(1): 115–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaliznyak, A. A. 1985. Ot praslavyanskoy akcentuacii k russkoy. [From the Proto-Slavic Accent System towards the Russian one]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar