Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2024) ► pp.258288
Baeskow, H.
(2006) Reflections on noun-to-verb conversion in English. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 25 1, 205–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Denominal verbs in morphology. In R. Lieber & M. Aronoff (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Noun-verb conversion as a metonymic metamorphosis. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 18 (1), 2–34.Google Scholar
(2022a) Experiencing the conceptual wealth of non-derived denominal verbs: A multi-level, simulation-based approach. Studia Linguistica, 76 (2), 591–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022b) Noun-verb conversion between the poles of predictability and idiosyncrasy: How do denominal verbs build their argument structures? Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation, 6 (2), 6–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
(2003) Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18 (5/6), 513–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, biological sciences, 364 1, 1281–1289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3 (1), 311, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(1983) English word-formation. Reprinted 1993. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2018) Conversion as metonymy. Word Structure, 11 (2), 175–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.
(2012) Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2014) Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (2), 313–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brekle, H. E.
(1976) Delokutive Verben: Ein sprechakttheoretisch fundierter Wortbildungstypus [Delocutive verbs: a word-formation type grounded in speech act theory]. In K. Braunmüller & W. Kürschner (Eds.), Grammatik. Akten des 10. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Tübingen 1975 (pp. 69–76). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, B.
(2011) Conversion as metonymy and the question of recursiveness. In B. Bierwiaczonek, B. Cetnarowska & A. Turula (Eds.), Syntax in Cognitive Grammar (pp. 13–26). Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Lingwistycznej.Google Scholar
Clark, E., & Clark, H.
(1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55 1, 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dokulil, M.
(1968) Zur Frage der sog. Nullableitung [On the question of the so-called zero-derivation]. In H. Brekle & L. Lipka (Eds.), Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie. Festschrift für Hans Marchand [Word-formation, syntax, and morphology. Festschrift for Hans Marchand] (pp. 55–64). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R.
(1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67 1, 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22 (3/4), 455–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J.
(1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Indurkhya, B.
(2010) On the role of metaphor in creative cognition. In D. Ventura, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, G. Ritchie & T. Veale (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity: ICCC-X (pp. 51–59). Coimbra: Department of Informatics Engineering University of Coimbra.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41 1, 9–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1942) A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: Morphology. Reprinted 1974. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Kaliuščenko, V. D.
(2000) Typologie denominaler Verben [Typology of denominal verbs]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karius, I.
(1985) Die Ableitung der denominalen Verben mit Nullsuffigierung im Englischen [The derivation of denominal verbs by means of null-suffixation in English]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P.
(2001) Metonymy. Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2 (2), 201–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistics view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 1, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2010) Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R.
(1981) On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC).Google Scholar
(1992) Deconstructing morphology. Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1998) The suffix -ize in English: implications for morphology. In S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari & P. M. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax (pp. 12–34). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2004) Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neef, M.
(2005) On some alleged constraints on conversion. In L. Bauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion/zero-derivation (pp. 103–130). New York [etc.]: Waxman.Google Scholar
Plag, I.
(1998) The polysemy of -ize derivatives: On the role of semantics in word formation. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1997 (pp. 219–242). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Morphological productivity: Structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plank, F.
(2005) Delocutive verbs, crosslinguistically. Linguistic Typology, 9 1, 459–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Primus, B.
(1999) Cases and thematic roles – ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Semantische Rollen [Semantic roles]. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Rauh, G.
(1988) Tiefenkasus, thematische Relationen, Thetarollen. Die Entwicklung einer Theorie von semantischen Relationen [Deep cases, thematic relations, theta-roles. The development of a theory of semantic relations]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rimell, L.
(2012) Nominal roots as event predicates in English denominal conversion verbs. Doctoral dissertation. New York: New York University.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P.
(1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 81, 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar. Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 21 1, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez-Hernández, L.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26 1, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, G.
(1988) Zero derivation and the Overt Analogue Criterion. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 155–175). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W.
(1987) Beobachtungen zur Paradigmatik der verbbildenden Suffixe -en, -ify und -ize im Englischen [Observations on the paradigmatics of the verb-forming suffixes -en, -ify, and -ize in English]. Sprachwissenschaft, 12 1, 88–109.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D.
(2005) Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. In L. Bauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Approaches to conversion / zero-derivation (pp. 131–159). Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P.
(1996) A theory of conversion in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Valera, S.
(2015) Conversion. In P.-O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Volume 1 (pp. 322–339). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, P. M.
(1996) Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen [Word-classes and word-class change. On conversion and related phenomena in German and other languages]. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Electronic sources

Davies, M.
2008–The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Available online at [URL]
2018–The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at [URL]
Oxford English Dictionary