Cover not available

In:Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 7–38

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Polysemy and synonymy

Corpus method and cognitive theory

 | University of Paris VIII
Published online: 6 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.01gly
This chapter introduces the field of polysemy and synonymy studies from a Cognitive Linguistic perspective. Firstly, the discussion explains and defines the object of research, showing that the study of semantic relations, traditionally restricted to the description of lexical semantics, needs to be extended to include all formal structures, including morpho-syntax. Secondly, given the theoretical assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, it is argued that quantitative corpus-driven methods are essential for the description of semantic structures. Lastly, the chapter charts the development of Cognitive Semantic research in polysemy and synonymy and demonstrates how the current corpus-driven research in the field is inherently linked to the traditions of radial network analysis and prototype semantics. It is argued that instead of an empirical revolution (as has been suggested in recent commentaries), the current trends in the use of observational data are a natural extension of the Cognitive Semantic research tradition.
References (221)
References
Apresjan, J.D. (1974). Лексическая Семантика. Синонимические средства языка [Lexical Semantics: Synonymous foundations of language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). Systematic lexicography . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora , 5, 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkins, B. (1994). Analyzing the verbs of seeing: A frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 42–56.
Barthélemy, J.-P. (1991). Similitude, arbres, et typicalité. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Sémantique et cognition: catégories, prototypes, typicalité (pp. 205–224). Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartmiński, J. (2008). Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics . London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellavia, E. (1996). The German über . In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 73–107). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic journey along the up-down and front-back dimensions . Tübignen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bondarko, A.V. (1983). Принципы функциональной грамматики и вопросы аспектологии [Principles of functional grammar and questions of aspectology]. Lenningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). Functional grammar: A field approach . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1983a). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon . Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1983b). How to be in the know about on the go . Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 19, 64–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1984). The very idea: A case study in polysemy and cross-lexical generalizations. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 20, 21–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casad, E. (Ed.). (1996). Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaffin, R. (1992). The concept of a semantic relation. In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organisation (pp. 253–288). 
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (1998). Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics , 9 , 107–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language , 57, 26–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coșeriu, E. (1980). Textlinguistik . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1998). Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics , 9, 151–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Toward a social Cognitive Linguistics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (2000). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computation approaches (pp. 30–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Opérations et représentations . Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (1991). The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch . Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993). The Dutch spatial preposition “in”: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 27–72). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial preposition op . In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 179–196). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1995). Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions Door and Langs . Cognitive Linguistics , 6, 183–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1997). Towards an empirical lexical semantics. In
 B. Smieja, & M. Tasch (Eds.), Human contact through language and linguistics (pp. 35–54). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. (Eds.). (2001). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (2002). Perspectives on prepositions . Tübignen: Max 
Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2003). Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1994). Radial categories in grammar: The Polish instrumental case. Linguistica Silesiana , 15, 83–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996). Temporal structuring of events: A study of Polish perfectivizing prefixes. In R. Dirven, & M. Pütz (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 467–490). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1997). Cognitive Semantics and the Polish dative . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Stadler, L., & Eyrich, C. (Eds.). (1993). Issues in Cognitive Linguistics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deane, P. (1988). Polysemy and cognition. Lingua , 75, 325–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993a). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of ‘over’ and other polysemous prepositions . Duisburg: LAUD.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993b). At, by, to, and past: A study in multimodal image theory. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 19, 112–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over . In 
B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 235–284). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delbeque, N. (1996). Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 249–318). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: On the role of image–schemas in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 351–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996). The separability of German über: A cognitive approach. In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 109–133). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1994). Cognition and semantic structure: The experiential basis of the semantic structure of verbs of body contact. In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 131–145). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. (1988). The conceptualisation of vertical space in English: The case of tall . In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 379–402). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Vanparys, J. (Eds.). (1995). Current approaches to the lexicon . Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2006). Ways of intending: A corpus-based Cognitive Linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010a). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010b). Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality relation in Russian. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 305–331). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 23–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, D. (Ed.). (1991). Sémantique et cognition: Catégories, prototypes, typicalité . Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunbar, G. (1991). The cognitive lexicon . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). Toward a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics , 12, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics , 41, 33–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 17, 491–534. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science , 22, 133–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica , 6, 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computation approaches (pp. 91–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language , 64, 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbours. In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organisation (pp. 75–102). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 43–61). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1987). On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics , 5 , 275–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). Where does prototypicality come from? In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics , 27, 587–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 195–210). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1992). The semantic structure of Dutch over . Leuvense Bijdragen , 81, 205–230.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993a). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 223–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993b). Generalised onomasiological salience. In J. Nuyts, & E. Pederson (Eds.), Perspectives on language and conceptualization (Special edition of the Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 8 )(pp. 43–56). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). Classical definability and the monosemic bias. Rivista di Linguistica , 6, 149–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1995). Representational formats in Cognitive Semantics. Folia Linguistica , 39, 21–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology .
Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998). The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van 
Langendonck, & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The dative. Vol. 2. Theoretical and contrastive studies (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999a). Beer and semantics. In L. De Stadler, & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–55). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999b). Idealist and empiricist tendencies in Cognitive Semantics. In 
T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 163–194). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2005). Lectal data and empirical variation in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interactions (pp. 163–189). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006a). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006b). Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 21–50). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010a). Theories of lexical semantics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010b). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 71–102). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Speelman, D. (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat . Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (Ed.) (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics, 27). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1982). Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language , 6, 23–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D. (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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010a). Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: 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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010b). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010c). Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: An overview of the field. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014a). The conceptual profile of the lexeme home: A multifactorial diachronic analysis. In J.E. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (pp. 265–293). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014b). The social nature of anger: Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual structure. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 69–82). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (Forthcoming). Mapping meaning: Corpus methods for Cognitive Semantics . 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.) (2010). Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1991). A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis , 21, 66–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 3 , 37–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2002). Surface generalization: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics , 13, 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics , 10, 105–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run . In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (Forthcoming). Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grondelaers, St., & 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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics , 3, 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1985). An introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. (1985). The semantics of English spatial prepositions . Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 271–297). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society , 13, 139–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. (1986). A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot- . 
Munich: Otto Sanger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). Radial network of a grammatical category – its genesis and dynamic structure. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 269–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993). A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V. (2009). What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics , 20, 367–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based approach . London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1982). Wortbildung und Semantik . Düsseldorf: Francke.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1984). The kind of/sort of construction. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 10, 128–137.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language , 75, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses: Computers and the Humanities , 31, 91–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittay, E., & Lehrer, A. (1981). Semantic fields and the structure of metaphor. Studies in Language , 5, 31–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klavan, J. (2012). Converging and diverging evidence: Corpus-linguistic and experimental methods for studying grammatical synonymy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Tartu.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1990). Sémantique du prototype: Catégorie et sens lexical . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999). Problèmes de sémantique: La polysémie en questions . Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, KLund University Press. (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: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. (2012). A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think . Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics , 48, 439–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics , 8, 291–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1975). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic , 2, 458–508.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society , 13, 236–287.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1982). Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1982). Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language , 58, 22–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites . 
Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application . 
Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1982). Wine and conversation . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990a). Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 207–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990b). Prototype theory and its implication for lexical analyses. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 368–381). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, K., & Lehrer, A. (1994). Fields, networks, and vectors. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: A festschrift for John Lyons (pp. 26–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, A., & Kittay, E. (Eds.). (1992). Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2011). A usage-based study of Dutch causative constructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (1996). Depth of negation: A cognitive semantic study . Łódź: Łódź University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liamkina, O. (2007). Semantic structure of the German spatial particle über . Journal of Germanic Linguistics , 19, 115–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindner, S. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with up and out. Trier: LAUT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipka, L. (1992). An outline of English lexicology . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lutzeier, P. (1985). Linguistische Semantik . Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meex, B. (2001). The spatial and non-spatial sense of the German preposition über . In 
H. Cuyckens, & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.A. (1989). Semantic primitives from the viewpoint of meaning-text linguistic theory. Quaderni di Semantica , 10, 65–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melis, L. (1990). La voie pronominale: La systématique des tours pronominaux en français moderne . Paris: Duclot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, P. (1997). Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 8, 327–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, D. (1994). Testing for prototypicality: The Chinese morpheme gong . Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 261–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V., & Clarke, D. (Eds.). (2003). Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, J. (1993). The semantics of giving in Mandarin. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 433–486). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987). Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 13, 195–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paprotté, W., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1985). Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pütz, M., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1996). The construal of space in language and thought . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rakova, M., Pethő, G., & Rákosi, C. (Eds.). (2007). The cognitive basis of polysemy: New sources of evidence for theories of word meaning . Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastier, F. (1987). Sémantique interprétative . Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). Sémantique et recherches cognitives . Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). La mesure et le grain: Sémantique de corpus . Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rauh, G. (Ed.). (1991). Approaches to prepositions . Tübignen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (Eds.). (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, S. (1993). Far afield in the lexical fields: The English prepositions . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999). Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: The case of to and for in English. Brain and Language , 68, 268–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, S., Sandra, D., & Vanrespaille, M. (1999). Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time. In M. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural typology and psycholinguistic issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 107–127). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1983). Cognitive Grammar and the structure of Dutch uit and Polish wy . Linguistic Agency University of Trier: Trier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1985). Metaphoric processes in word formation. In W. Paprotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 209–241). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989). Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask . In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (pp. 613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1992). Case relations in Cognitive Grammar: Some reflexive uses of the Polish dative. Leuvense Bijdragen , 81, 327–373.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). The structure of the genitive category in Polish. Proceedings of the LAUD International Symposium Language and Space , Duisburg . Republished in Rudzka-Ostyn (2000: Chapter 6).
. (1995). Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective (pp. 205–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996). The Polish dative. In W. van Belle, & W. van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative. Vol. 1. Descriptive studies (pp. 341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka [Considerations on the category of case]. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (Ed.). (1988). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B., & Geiger, R. (Eds.). (1993). Conceptualizations and mental processing in language . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, J., & Spooren, W. (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics , 7, 241–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics , 6, 89–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (1993). Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin. Die Kategorisierung als Grundprinzip einer differenzierten Bedeutungsbeschreibung . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition . 
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–135). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automated human information processing, I: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review , 84, 1–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, R. (1988). A short story of down . In W. Hüllen, & R. Schulze (Eds.), Understanding the lexicon: Meaning, sense, and world knowledge in lexical semantics (pp. 395–414). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). Getting round to (a)round: Towards the description and analysis of a ‘spatial’ predicate. In G. Rauh (Ed.), Approaches to prepositions (pp. 253–74). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1993). The meaning of (a)round: A study of an English preposition. In A. Geiger, & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 399–432). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). Image schemata and the semantics of off . In M. Schwarz (Ed.), Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven (pp. 197–213). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, M. (Ed.). (1994). Kognitive Semantik: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven . Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing, II: Perception, learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review , 84, 127–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2010). Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics , 19, 513–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Empirical cognitive semantics: Some thoughts. In D. Glynn, & 
K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 355–380). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stepanov, J.S. (1997). Константы: Словарь русской культуры [Constants: A dictionary of Russian culture]. Moscow: Shkola Jezyki Russkoj Kul’tury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science , 12, 49–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 299–326). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J., & MacLaury, R. (1995). Language and the cognitive construal of the world . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (1989a). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989b). Possessive genitives in English. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics 27) (pp. 663–686). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996). On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics , 7, 21–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition . London & Cambridge (Mss): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsohatzidis, S. (Ed.). (1990). Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization . 
London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999). Linguistic evidence for polysemy in the mind: A response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra. Cognitive Linguistics , 10, 343–368.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1, 225–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D. Clark (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 95–160). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1986). L’espace en français . Paris: Seuil. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp. 403–437). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). Methodology and analysis of the preposition in . Cognitive Linguistics , 5, 157–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1981). Problems of lexical semantics. Lingua , 53, 317–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Victorri, B., & Fuchs, C. (1996). La polysémie: construction dynamique du sens . Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vorkachev, S.G. (2004). Счастье как лингвокультурный концепт [Happiness as a cultural-linguistic concept]. Moscow: Gnozis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vorlat, E. (1985). Metaphors and their aptness for trade names in perfumes. In W. Paprotté, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 263–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and conceptual analysis . Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989). Prototypes in semantics and pragmatics: Explicating attitudinal meanings in terms of prototypes. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (pp. 731–769). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). Prototypes ‘save’: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies on linguistic categorization (pp. 347–367). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. (2007). Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 265–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2006). Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 101–126). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (Ed.). (1993). The semantics of prepositions . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (30)

Cited by 30 other publications

Demneri, Ejona
2025. The Effectiveness of Synonymy as a Cohesive Device in Improving Students' Essay Writing. European Journal of English Language Studies 5:4 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Gabidullina, Alla, Anastasiia Sokolova, Olena Kolesnichenko, Maryna Zharykova & Oleh Shlapakov
2025. The role of metonymy and polysemy in academic and popular science literature. Crossroads A Journal of English Studies :48(1) ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Jamet-Coupé, Denis
2025. Ce que de grands corpus nous révèlent sur l’usage littéral et figuré des termes pain (français) / bread (anglais). Roczniki Humanistyczne 73:8 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Song, Yiming & Deliang Wang
2025. BERT-assisted behavioral profiling of polysemy: contrastive analysis of HONG in Chinese and RED in English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Bębeniec, Daria
2024. In search of methodological standards for corpus-based cognitive semantics: The case of Behavioral Profiles. Studia Neophilologica 96:2 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Guardamagna, Caterina
2024. A corpus-based analysis of ‘vernacular synonyms’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 29:4 ► pp. 562 ff. DOI logo
Hrenek, Éva
2024. Tulajdonképpeni jelentésükben (is) szinonim igék jelentéseinek összefüggései a felcserélhetőség és a szinonímia vonatkozásában. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 120 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Hrenek, Éva
2025. A szintaktikai formák és a konstrukciós sémák szerepe az igék felcserélhetőségében és szinonímiájában. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Haitao, Toshiyuki Kanamaru & Ke Li
2024. The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 476 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Meili
2023. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile of the Mandarin Chinese temperature termre: a diachronic semasiological approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Sloane, Mona, Ian René Solano-Kamaiko, Jun Yuan, Aritra Dasgupta & Julia Stoyanovich
2023. Introducing contextual transparency for automated decision systems. Nature Machine Intelligence 5:3 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Takač, Višnja Pavičić & Gabrijela Buljan
2023. Acquisition of English nominal suffix -er by advanced EFL learners: a view from usage-based perspective. ExELL 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Shuqiong & Yue Ou
2023.  A quantitative study of the polysemy of Mandarin Chinese perception verb kàn ‘look/see’ . Australian Journal of Linguistics 43:3 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Kekki, Niina & Ilmari Ivaska
2022. The use of synonymous adjectives by learners of Finnish as a second language. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona
2022. Contrast and analogy in aspectual distinctions of English and Polish. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Krawczak, Karolina, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Marcin Grygiel
2022. Introduction. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liesenfeld, Andreas, Meichun Liu & Chu-Ren Huang
2022. Profiling the Chinese causative construction withrang(讓),shi(使) andling(令) using frame semantic features. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris & Jeanne Vigneron-Bosbach
2021. Introduction. Syntaxe & Sémantique N° 21:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Fishman, Alon
2020. English similarity predicates construe particular dimensions of similarity. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
Gómez Vicente, Lucía
2019. Description, acquisition and teaching of polysemous verbs: The case ofquedar. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 57:1 ► pp. 21 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
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse. Topics in Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
MEHL, SETH
2019. Light verb semantics in theInternational Corpus of English: onomasiological variation, identity evidence and degrees of lightness. English Language and Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Mehl, Seth
2021. What we talk about when we talk about corpus frequency: The example of polysemous verbs with light and concrete senses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:1 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
2019. MadSex: collecting a spoken corpus of indirectly elicited sexual concepts. Language Resources and Evaluation 53:1 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Proos, Mariann
2019. Polysemy of the Estonian perception verb nägema ‘to see’. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona & Alicja Jajko-Siwek
2018. Expressing i think that in Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Fitzmaurice, Susan, Justyna A. Robinson, Marc Alexander, Iona C. Hine, Seth Mehl & Fraser Dallachy
2017. Reading into the past. In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Jansegers, Marlies, Clara Vanderschueren & Renata Enghels
2015. The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A behavioral profile analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 26:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Cognitive Semantics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 15], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue