Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 245282
Arppe, A, Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zschel, A.
2010Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnier, J.
2019explor: Interactive interfaces for results exploration. R package version 0.3.5. [URL]Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
2006Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28, 120–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008The later development of an early-emerging system: The curious case of the Polish genitive. Linguistics, 46, 629–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Tomasello, M.
2008Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children’s acquisition of the instrumental construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 533–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2007TIME Magazine corpus (100 million words, 1920s-2000s). Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
2008The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
2011Corpus of American soap operas: 100 million words. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E.
Drożdż, G.
2016Perceptual foundations of English temporal and aspectual constructions. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 102–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017The Puzzle of (Un)Countability in English. A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
2004The structure of time language. Meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. Landau, S., Leese, M., and Stahl, D.
2011Cluster analysis. (5th Ed). Chichester: John Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M.
2012Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of Appraisal in BP’s and Ikea’s social reports. Discourse and Communication, 6, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Building a trustworthy corporate identity: A corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Applied Linguistics, 39, 846–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018A step-wise method for annotating appraisal. Functions of Language, 25, 229–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M., & Hommerberg, C.
2015Optimizing transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the quantification of evaluative expressionsCorpora, 10, 315–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
1993Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
1994The structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
1999Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Glynn, D.
2008Lexical fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (77–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014aThe many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (117–144). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014bCorrespondence Analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (443–486). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015aThe social nature of anger. Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual structure. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (69–82). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2015bConceptualisation of home in popular Anglo-American texts: A multifactorial diachronic analysis. In J. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (265–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015cThe socio-cultural conceptualisation of femininity. Corpus evidence for cognitive models. In J. Badio, & K. Kosecki (Eds.), Empirical methods in language studies (97–117). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016aQuantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50, 413–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016bSemasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms – New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
(Eds.) 2010Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J.
2014. (Eds.) Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
2019Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M.
2007Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd Ed.). London: Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th
1999Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 105–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2006Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Divjak, D.
2009Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (57–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S.
2000De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguïstische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. Doctoral dissertation, Leuven University.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Brysbaert, M.
1996De distributie van het presentatieve er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 1, 280–305.Google Scholar
Heylen, K.
2005A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.). Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
1987Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak. K.
2014Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50, 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (355–386). Lund: Lund University PressGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D.
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M.
2016A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation. Folia Linguistica, 50, 475–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2011Conceptual semantics, symbolic grammar, and the day after day construction. In P. Sutcliff, W. Sullivan, & A. Lommel (Eds.), Mechanisms of linguistic behavior (3–24). Houston: LACUS.Google Scholar
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F.
2008FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M., & Hornik, K.
2019cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.1.0.Google Scholar
Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M.
2007Correspondence Analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1–13.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
1989Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon- Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth. Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective (205–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
2017Linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (435–452). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B.
2003Be going to versus will/shall. Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics, 31, 130–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1985Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2013Statistical guide for partitioning around medoids, section 7.1.1, [URL].
Vendler, Z.
1957Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
1997Situated embodiment. Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.Google Scholar
2003Polysemy or generality? In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Glynn, Dylan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure. Linguistics Vanguard 0:0 DOI logo
Wang, Haitao, Toshiyuki Kanamaru & Ke Li
2023. The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 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.