Introduction
Analogy and contrast in language: Theoretical and empirical insights from Cognitive Linguistics
Article outline
- 1.Introductory remarks
- 2.Overview of the contributions
- 3.Concluding remarks
-
References
References (17)
References
Blevins, J. P., & Blevins, J. 2009. Introduction:
Analogy in grammar. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy
in grammar: Form and
acquisition (1–12). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. 2006. From
usage to grammar: The mind’s response to
repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Saussure, F. 1959. Course
in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories
of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. J. 2006. Relations,
objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive
Science, 30, 609–642. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hofstadter, D. R. 2001. Epilogue:
Analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The
analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive
science (499–538). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. 2001. Introduction. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. K. Kokinov (Eds.), The
analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive
science (1–19). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kokinov, B., & French, R. 2003. Computational
models of analogy-making. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of cognitive
science (113–118). London: Nature Publishing Group.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical
prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive
application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar
and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. This
volume. What could be more fundamental?
Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H. 2008. An
amicus for the defense: Relational reasoning magnifies the behavioral differences between humans and
nonhumans. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 31(3), 142. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D, J. 2008. Darwin’s
mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and
Brain
Sciences, 31(3), 109–178. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tabakowska, E. This
volume. Diagrammatic iconicity and rendering time in a narrative text: Analogies and
contrasts.
Tomasello, M. 2000. First
steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive
Linguistics, 11, 61–82.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)