Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 34:4 (2010) ► pp.922929
References (20)
References
Arppe, Antti & Juhani Järvikivi. 2007. Every method counts  – comparing corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2), 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 51, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne E. Kemmer (eds). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CSLI.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1989. A typology of English texts. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Durrant, Philip & Alice Doherty. 2010. Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6 (2), 125–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Rita Simpson-Vlach. 2009. Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1), 61–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H. -J. Schmid and S. Handl (eds), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns, 89–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds). 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Geeraerts & Dirk Speelman. 2007. A case for a cognitive corpus linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson and M. Spivey (eds), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, 149–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 187–219. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mollin, Sandra. 2009. Combining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(2), 175–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2007. Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan T. Gries (eds). 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1986. Force dynamics as a generalization over ‘causative’. In D. Tannen and J. E. Alatis (eds), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 67–85. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie & Jereon van de Weijer (eds). 2003. Usage-based approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2009. Converging evidence from corpus and experimental data to capture idiomaticity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1), 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar