References (87)
References
Apostolopoulos, D. (2019). Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of language. London & New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2008). Grounded cognition. The Annual Review of Psychology, 59 1, 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2 (4), 716–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3 (1), 311, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2021). Metalinguistic relativity. Does one’s ontology determine one’s view on linguistic relativity. Language and Communication, 76 (4), 35–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1963). Essays, 1958–1962, on atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Interscience Publishers.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, H. (1974). Anmerkungen zur Logik, Ontologie, und Semantik bei Leibniz [Notes on logic, ontology, and semantics in Leibniz]. Studia Leibnitiana, 6 1, 49–68.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2015). All concepts are ad hoc concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 543–566). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (9), 345–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford & NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devyldier, S. & Zlatev, J. (2020). Cutting and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 253–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In St. Harnad, H. Steklis & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Annals of the New York academy of sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and speech, 2801 (pp. 20–32). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch., & Atkins, B. (1994). Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In B. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approach to the lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. (1994). The Stoic notion of a Lekton . In S. Everson (Ed.), Language (pp. 109–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006a). Words and other wonders: papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: M. de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Yv. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York & London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2006). The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 159–192). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glebkin, V. (2013). A socio-cultural history of the machine metaphor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (1), 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). The Conceptual Integration Theory of Fauconnier and Turner (An essay of systemic analysis). Social Sciences, 44 (4), 69–84.Google Scholar
(2015). Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition? Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 95–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Cognitive Semantics: A cultural-historical perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. (2010). Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics. Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hass, L. (2008). Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heelan, P. (2016). The observable: Heisenberg’s philosophy of quantum mechanics. New York: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helrich, C. (2021). The quantum theory – origins and ideas. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (1996). Bouncebackability: A Web-as-corpus-based case study of a new formation, its interpretation, generalization/spread and subsequent decline. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3(2), 17–27.Google Scholar
Howard, D. (2022). The Copenhagen interpretation. In O. Friere Jr. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the history of quantum interpretations (pp. 521–542). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jemmer, M. (1974). The philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28 (2), 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krois, J., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D. (eds.) (2007). Embodiment in cognition and culture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.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
Landes, D. (2013). The Merleau-Ponty dictionary. London & New York: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. (1996). New essays on human understanding. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. (First published 1765) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). The art of controversies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Long, A. (2005). Stoic linguistics, Plato’s Cratylus, and Augustine’s De dialectica . In D. Frede & B. Inwood (Eds.), Language and learning: Philosophy of language in the Hellenistic Age (pp. 36–55). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, 71, 167–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maat, J. (2004). Philosophical languages in the seventeenth century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madzia, R., & Jung, M. (Eds.) (2016). Pragmatism and embodied cognitive science: from bodily intersubjectivity to symbolic articulation. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manetti, G. (1993). Theories of the sign in classical antiquity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Mates, B. (1989). The philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehra, J. & Rechenberg, H. (1982–2001). The historical development of quantum theory. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1967). La structure du comportement [The structure of behavior]. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
(1976). Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Paris: Gallimard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979). Le Visible et l’invisible [The Visible and the Invisible]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–77). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Noё, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Ogden, Ch., & Richards, I. (1923). The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & company, inc.Google Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet construction. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–163). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plotnitsky, A. (2006). Reading Bohr: Physics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Posner, M. (1986). Empirical studies of prototypes. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 53–61). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4 1, 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975). Reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7 1, 532–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975a). Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104 1, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Еds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; New York: distributed by Halsted Press.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., Baker, C. F. & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. [URL]
Ruthenford, D. (1995). Philosophy and language in Leibniz. In N. Jolley (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Leibniz (pp. 224–269). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (2015). Prototype effects in grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 562–579). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. (1972). Leibniz and language. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 35 1, 297–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1904). Die « Objectivität » sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [The ‘objectivity’ of sociological and socio-political knowledge]. Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, 19 1, 22–97.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Innate conceptual primitives manifested in the languages of the world and in infant cognition. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 379–412). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. (2006). The situated nature of concepts. The American Journal of Psychology, 119 (3), 349–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., & Frank, R. M. (Eds.) (2007). Body, language, and mind. Vol. 1. Embodiment. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J. (2019). Norms of language: What kinds and where from? Insights from phenomenology. In A. Mäkilähde, V. Leppanen, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), Normativity in language and linguistics (pp. 69–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar