Article published In:
Expressing and Describing Surprise
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 353382
References
Akatsuka, N
(1985) Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language, 61(3), 625–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A
(2008) Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography; A study of synonymy. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Bondarko, A
(1991) Functional grammar. A field approach (trans. I. Chulaki). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H
(2007) Predicting the dative. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation alternation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S
(1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 161, 529–564.Google Scholar
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L
(2001) Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 339–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E
Divjak, D
(2010) Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, J., Scherer, K., & Soriano, C
(Eds.) (2013) Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P
(1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D
(2008) Lexical 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 (pp. 89–118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) Polysemy, syntax, and variation. A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–486). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, D
(Eds.) (2010) Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J
Goldberg, A
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S.T
(1999) Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 105–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D
(2003) Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 67–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Heylen, K
(2005) A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K
(2014a) Shame and its near-synonyms in English: A multivariate corpus-driven approach to social emotions. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 84–94). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2014b) Epistemic 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 (pp. 355–386). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2014c) Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 541, 441–475.Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D
in press). Operationalising construal. Of / about prepositional profiling for cognition and communication predicates. In C.M. Bretones Callejas & C. Sinha (Eds.) Construals in language and thought: What shapes what? Amsterdam John Benjamins
Langacker, R
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lattin, J.M., Carrol, J.D., & Green, P.E
(2003) Analyzing multivariate data. Pacific Grove: Thomson Brooks.Google Scholar
McFadden, D
(1978) Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent developments. In D.A. Hensher & P.R. Stopher (Eds.), Behavioral travel modeling (pp. 279–318). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Nordmark, H., & Glynn, D
(2013) Anxiety between mind and society: A corpus-driven cross-cultural study of conceptual metaphors. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 11, 107–130.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J
(2001) Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K
(2005) What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 441, 693–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soriano, C., Fontaine, J.R.J., & Scherer, K.R
(this volume). Surprise in the GRID. DOI logo
Speelman, D
(2005) LiveJournal corpus of British and American English. Leuven University.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A
(2010) Empirical Cognitive Semantics: Some thoughts. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 355– 380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winner, E., Windmueller, G., Rosenblatt, E., Bosco, L., Best, E., & Gardner, H
(1987) Making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 21, 13–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 13 other publications

Choi, Soonja, Florian Goller, Ulrich Ansorge, Upyong Hong & Hongoak Yun
2022. Lexical expressions and grammatical markers for source of information: A contrast between German and Korean. Language Sciences 92  pp. 101475 ff. DOI logo
De Wit, Astrid
2017. The expression of mirativity through aspectual constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2  pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
2019. Chapter 9. My anger was justified surely?. In Emotion in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 302],  pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Ghesquière, Lobke & Faye Troughton
2021. What a Change! A Diachronic Study of Exclamative What Constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 49:2  pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Glynn, Dylan
2022. Chapter 8. Emergent categories. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73],  pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Glynn, Dylan & Avgustina Biryukova
2022. Death, enemies, and illness: How English and Russian metaphorically conceptualise boredom. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1  pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
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 10:s1  pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2017. A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1  pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2  pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Krawczak, Karolina
2022. Chapter 11. Modeling constructional variation. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73],  pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
SERRANO-LOSADA, MARIO
2020. Analogy-driven change: the emergence and development of mirativeend upconstructions in American English. English Language and Linguistics 24:1  pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Troughton, Faye
2024. Quelle traduction ! A study of the translation of French quel and English what exclamatives in political discourse. Meta 68:2  pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Türkyılmaz, Bahar
2024. Özbek Türkçesinde Miratif (Beklenmeyen Bilgi) Kategorisi. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :15  pp. 507 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 june 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.