Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
An Integrated Approach to Conventionality and Its Implications for the Semantics of Emotion Terms Cover

An Integrated Approach to Conventionality and Its Implications for the Semantics of Emotion Terms

Open Access
|Mar 2013

References

  1. Allwood, Jens 2003 “Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning”, in: Hubert Cuyckens et al. (eds.), 29-66.
  2. Cuyckens, Hubert - René Dirven - John Taylor (eds.) 2003Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  3. Boas, Hans C. 2003(Stanford Monographs in Linguistics.) Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.
  4. Cameron, Lynne J. 2003. London: Continuum.
  5. Chłopicki, Władysław - Andrzej Pawelec - Agnieszka Pokojska (eds.) 2007. Kraków: Tertium.
  6. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Croft, William 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Deignan, Alice 2005Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  9. Deignan, Alice 2006 “The grammar of linguistic metaphors”, in: Anatol Stefanowitsch - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), 106-123.
  10. Dirven, René 2005 “Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics”, in: Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez - Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), 17-68.
  11. Evans, Vyvyan 2006 “Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction”,17(4): 491-534.
  12. Evans, Vyvyan - Melanie Green 2006Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  13. Fauconnier, Giles - Mark Turner 2002. New York: Basic Books.
  14. Fillmore, Charles J. 1985 “Frames and the semantics of understanding”,6: 222- 254.
  15. Frijda, Nico H. 1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Geeraerts, Dirk 2003 “Decontextualizing and recontextualizing tendencies in 20th century linguistics and literary theory”, in: Ewald Mengel et al. (eds.), 369-379. 2006 “Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics”, in: Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), 1-28.
  17. Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.) 2006. Berlin - New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
  18. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  19. Giora, Rachel 1999 “On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language”,31/7: 919-929.
  20. Glynn, Dylan 2004 “Constructions at the crossroads: the place of construction grammar between field and frame”,2: 197-233.
  21. Haiman, John 1980 “Dictionaries and encyclopedias”,50: 329-357.
  22. Hampe, Beate - Joseph E. Grady (eds.) 2005Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  23. Hanks, Patrick 2006 “Metaphoricity is gradable”, in: Anatol Stefanowitsch - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.),17-36.
  24. Hudson, Richard 2008 “Word grammar and construction grammar”, in: Graeme Trousdale - Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), 257-302.
  25. Kövecses, Zoltán 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. Lakoff, George 1987. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  27. Lakoff, George - Mark Johnson. 1980. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  28. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987grammar. Vol. 1:Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 2005 “Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so”, in: Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez - Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), 101-159. 2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. McRae, Kenneth J.- Michael Spivey-Knowlton - Michael K. Tanenhaus 1998 “Modelling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension”,38: 283-312.
  30. Mengel, Ewald - Hans-Jorg Schmid - Michael Steppard (eds.) 2003Trier: Wissenschaftliger Verlag.
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. - Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.) 2005(Cognitive Linguistics Research 32.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  32. Solomon, Robert C. 1976New York: Doubleday Anchor.
  33. Steen, Gerard J. 2002 “Metaphor identification: A cognitive approach”,36/3: 386-407. 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  34. Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2006 “Words and their metaphors: A Corpus-based approach”, in: Anatol Stefanowitsch - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), 63-105.
  35. Stefanowitsch, Anatol - Stefan Th. Gries 2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions”,8/2: 209-243.
  36. Stefanowitsch, Anatol - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.) 2006. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
  37. Stern, Josef 2000. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  38. Strugielska, Ariadna 2010 “Metafora konceptualna - między kategorią klasyczną a modelem potocznym”, in: Zdzisław Wąsik - Aleksandra Wach (eds.), 109-121.
  39. Szwedek, Aleksander 2007 “Polysemy and metaphorization”, in: Władysław Chłopicki et al. (eds.), 255-272.
  40. Taylor, John 2002Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  41. Trousdale, Graeme - Nikolas Gisborne (eds.) 2008. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  42. Vandeloise, Claude 1994. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  43. Wąsik, Zdzisław - Aleksandra Wach (eds.) 2010. Poznań: Instytut Filologii Angielskiej UAM.
  44. Zlatev, Jordan 2005 “What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language”, in: Beate Hampe - Joseph E. Grady (eds.), 313-342.
  45. BNC:[Available at: http:// www.view.byu.edu ED 01.2011].
  46. Kemmer, Suzanne 2005 “Constructional profiles as the basis of semantic analysis”, [Paper read at the Converging and Diverging Trends in Cognitive Linguistics conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 17-18 October. Available at: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/DUB3.ppt].
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10121-010-0018-1 | Journal eISSN: 2082-5102 | Journal ISSN: 0081-6272
Language: English
Page range: 25 - 46
Published on: Mar 27, 2013
Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2013 Ariadna Strugielska, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.