Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 1–20

Introduction

Theoretical, methodological, and practical problems in the study of lexicogrammar

Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.01dro
References (62)
Aronoff, M. 1993. Morphology by itself: Items and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berg, T. 2014. Boundary permeability: A parameter for linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology, 18(3), 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 2007. Construction morphology and the lexicon. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & N. Hathout (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse (34–44). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
. 2010. Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Brinton, L., & Brinton, D.M. 2010. The structure of modern English: A linguistic introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L., & Traugott, E.C. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C. 2006. Cognitive approaches to grammar. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (81–115). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. 2004. Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. 2nd Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. 2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, C.C. 1952. The structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. 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 Science, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nues, J., & Grohmann, K.K. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J., & Fodor, J. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1999. Correspondences, compositionality, and grammar. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, 2(2), 61–76.Google Scholar
. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (1–63). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions. Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 251–278.Google Scholar
. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M.S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 31–64.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1992. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. 2010. The spatial foundations of the conceptual systems. Language and Cognition, 2, 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. 2013. Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. 2011a. Introduction. Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Eds.). 2011b. Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). 2004. Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2004. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Diez, O. 2002. Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1976. Semantic causative types: The grammar of causative constructions. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 6 (43–116). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R. 1998. Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (177–202). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2009. The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In E.L. Bavin (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (69–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott Closs, E., & Dasher, R.B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat? Language, 58, 753–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Boys will be boys. Language, 63, 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. 2007. Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & Magnusson, U. 2012. Metaphor and subjective experience: A study of motion-emotion metaphors in English, Swedisch, Bulgarian, and Thai. In A. Foolen, U. Lüdtke, P. Timothy, P. Racine, & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (423–450). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & David, C. 2010. Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, space and cognition (389–418). London: Equinox.Google Scholar