2023. Vietnamese fictive motion constructions: a construction grammar approach. Cogent Arts & Humanities 10:1
Hu, Jian
2023. Towards a Constructional Approach to Metaphor of Modality. In A Constructional Approach to Interpersonal Metaphor of Modality [Peking University Linguistics Research, 7], ► pp. 29 ff.
Stadnik, Katarzyna
2023. Julian of Norwich’s a Revelation of Love: A Grounded Cognition Approach to a Late Medieval Text. Research in Language 21:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Stoyanova, Antonia
2023. Sensory modality as a linguistic sign of the ‘divided self’ in John Banville’s novels. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 32:2 ► pp. 231 ff.
Chen, Peishan & Huhua Ouyang
2022. Support use in Chinese writers’ English argumentative models: Status and linguistic subjectivity. Linguistics and Education 71 ► pp. 101060 ff.
Hoshi, Saori
2022. Effects of Classroom Instruction on the Development of L2 Interactional Resource for Joint Stance Taking: Use of Japanese Interactional ParticleYoin Spontaneous Peer Conversation. Applied Linguistics 43:4 ► pp. 698 ff.
2018. Managing subjectivity: Omission and expression of first-person singular object a mí in Spanish media discourse. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 63:3 ► pp. 423 ff.
Crossley, Scott A., Kristopher Kyle & Danielle S. McNamara
2017. Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order analysis. Behavior Research Methods 49:3 ► pp. 803 ff.
2020. Suggestive Landscape. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68:4 ► pp. 451 ff.
Turner, Mark
2020. Constructions and creativity. Cognitive Semiotics 13:1
Bu, Jiemin
2016. A semantic study of tense backshift and its literary effects in FID
. Journal of Literary Semantics 45:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
Gomola, Aleksander
2016. English Evaluative Concepts in a Contemporary Devotional Christian Text. A Comparative Study of Dzienniczek by Faustyna Kowalska and Its English Translation. In Translating Values, ► pp. 123 ff.
2015. Epistemic inclination and factualization: a synchronic and diachronic study on the semantic gradience of factuality. Language and Cognition 7:3 ► pp. 371 ff.
2015. ‘Look who’s talking now’: A taxonomy of speakers in single-turn political discourse. Discourse Studies 17:3 ► pp. 343 ff.
Brown, H. Paul
2014. The Grammaticalization of Daimonie at Iliad 24.194. Mnemosyne 67:3 ► pp. 353 ff.
He, Qingshun
2014. A Study of the Subjectification of the Chinese Word <i>Suoyi</i>. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 04:03 ► pp. 399 ff.
Maldonado, Ricardo & Rocío Guzmán
2014. Apenas. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 443 ff.
Dancygier, Barbara
2012. Negation, stance verbs, and intersubjectivity. In Viewpoint in Language, ► pp. 69 ff.
LIAMKINA, OLGA & MARIANNA RYSHINA‐PANKOVA
2012. Grammar Dilemma: Teaching Grammar as a Resource for Making Meaning. The Modern Language Journal 96:2 ► pp. 270 ff.
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2012. “Wait tillyougot started”. In Viewpoint in Language, ► pp. 198 ff.
BREMS, LIESELOTTE
2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 83 ff.
Sonnenhauser, Barbara
2010. Krause, M.: Epistemische Modalität. Zur Interaktion lexikalischer und prosodischer Marker. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Russischen und des Bosnisch-Kroatisch-Serbischen (Slavistische Studienbücher. Neue Folge, 17), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007, 250 pp.. Russian Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 187 ff.
Iwasaki, Shin-Ya
2009. A Cognitive Grammar account of time motion ‘metaphors’: A view from Japanese. Cognitive Linguistics 20:2
Houben, Jan E. M.
2008. Pāṇini’s Grammar and Its Computerization: A Construction Grammar Approach. In Sanskrit Computational Linguistics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5406], ► pp. 6 ff.
Tribushinina, Elena
2008. EGO as a cognitive reference point: the case of невысокий and низкий. Russian Linguistics 32:3 ► pp. 159 ff.
Hamawand, Zeki
2007. The construal of objectivity in atemporal complement clauses in English. <i>WORD</i> 58:1-3 ► pp. 159 ff.
Cornillie, Bert
2006. A Paradigmatic View of Spanish amenazar ‘to threaten’ and prometer ‘to promise’. Folia Linguistica 39:3-4
Pit, Mirna
2006. Determining Subjectivity in Text: The Case of Backward Causal Connectives in Dutch. Discourse Processes 41:2 ► pp. 151 ff.
Smet, Hendrik De & Jean-Christophe Verstraete
2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17:3
ISHIKAWA, KIYOSHI
2005. Temporal Cognition and Activities by Situated Agents (P. Ludlow, Semantics, Tense and Time: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Natural Language). ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 22:2 ► pp. 443 ff.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Motives for Language Change, ► pp. 124 ff.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2001. Regularity in Semantic Change,
Xiong, Xueliang
1998. First person zero anaphor as a cognitive unit in Chinese. <i>WORD</i> 49:3 ► pp. 383 ff.
Breivik, Leiv Egil
1997. D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pp. viii + 230. £35, US$54.95, ISBN 0 521 47039 0.. English Language and Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 199 ff.
Schmid, Monika S. & Dieter Stein
1996. Subjektivierung in markierter Wortstellung im Englischen. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 26:2 ► pp. 97 ff.
Song, Jae Jung
1996. From purposive to manner in Korean: A semantic‐pragmatic change of subjectification. Australian Journal of Linguistics 16:2 ► pp. 209 ff.
HONDA, AKIRA
1994. FROM SPATIAL COGNITION TO SEMANTIC STRUCTURE: THE ROLE OF SUBJECTIVE MOTION IN COGNITION AND LANGUAGE. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 11:0 ► pp. 197 ff.
KOGA, KEISUKE
1992. A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO DEFINITENESS: FROM SPECIFIC TO GENERIC. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 9:0 ► pp. 152 ff.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1986. An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
1998. REFERENCES. In Representation of Cognitive Structures,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 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.