THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics provides a comprehensive introduction and

essential reference work to cognitive linguistics. It encompasses a wide range of perspectives and
approaches, covering all the key areas of cognitive linguistics and drawing on interdisciplinary
and multidisciplinary research in pragmatics, discourse analysis, biolinguistics, ecolinguistics, evo-
lutionary linguistics, neuroscience, language pedagogy, and translation studies.
The forty-​three chapters, written by international specialists in the field, cover four major areas:

• Basic theories and hypotheses, including cognitive semantics, cognitive grammar, construction
grammar, frame semantics, natural semantic metalanguage, and word grammar;
• Central topics, including embodiment, image schemas, categorization, metaphor and
metonymy, construal, iconicity, motivation, constructionalization, intersubjectivity, grounding,
multimodality, cognitive pragmatics, cognitive poetics, humor, and linguistic synaesthesia,
among others;
• Interfaces between cognitive linguistics and other areas of linguistic study, including cultural
linguistics, linguistic typology, figurative language, signed languages, gesture, language acqui-
sition and pedagogy, translation studies, and digital lexicography;
• New directions in cognitive linguistics, demonstrating the relevance of the approach to social,
diachronic, neuroscientific, biological, ecological, multimodal, and quantitative studies.

The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics is an indispensable resource for undergraduate

and postgraduate students, and for all researchers working in this area.

Xu Wen is Professor of Linguistics and Dean of College of International Studies at Southwest

University, China.

John R. Taylor was senior lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Otago, New Zealand.
 ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN LINGUISTICS

Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics provide overviews of a whole subject area or sub-​discipline in

linguistics, and survey the state of the discipline including emerging and cutting edge areas. Edited
by leading scholars, these volumes include contributions from key academics from around the
world and are essential reading for both advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students.

The Routledge Handbook of Vocabulary Studies

Edited by Stuart Webb

The Routledge Handbook of North American Languages

Edited by Daniel Siddiqi, Michael Barrie, Carrie Gillon, Jason D. Haugen and
Éric Mathieu

The Routledge Handbook of Language and Science

Edited by David R. Gruber and Lynda Walsh

The Routledge Handbook of Language and Emotion

Edited by Sonya E. Pritzker, Janina Fenigsen, and James M. Wilce

The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact

Edited by Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras

The Routledge Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Languages

Edited by Umberto Ansaldo and Miriam Meyerhoff

The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics

Edited by Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research

Edited by Josep Quer, Roland Pfau, and Annika Herrmann

Further titles in this series can be found online at www.routledge.com/​series/​RHIL

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK
OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

Edited by Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

 First published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Xu Wen and John R. Taylor to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​49071-​0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-64159-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​351-​03470-​8 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Newgen Publishing UK
 CONTENTS

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xii
List of Contributors xiii
Acknowledgementsxx

Introduction: Cognitive Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect 1

Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

PART I
Basic Theories and Hypotheses 17

1 Cognitive Semantics 19
Dirk Geeraerts

2 Cognitive Grammar 30
Cristiano Broccias

3 Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics 43

Hans C. Boas

4 Multimodal Construction Grammar: From Multimodal Constructs to

Multimodal Constructions 78
Thomas Hoffmann

5 Natural Semantic Metalanguage 93

Cliff Goddard

6 Word Grammar 111

Richard Hudson

v
 Contents

7 The Creativity of Negation: On Default Metaphorical, Sarcastic,

and Metaphorically Sarcastic Constructions 127
Rachel Giora

PART II
Central Topics in Cognitive Linguistics 143

8 Embodiment 145
Xu Wen and Canzhong Jiang

9 Image Schemas 161

Dennis Tay

10 Categorization 173
Xu Wen and Zhengling Fu

11 Standard and Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory 191

Zoltán Kövecses

12 Conceptual Metonymy Theory Revisited: Some Definitional and

Taxonomic Issues 204
Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez

13 Force Dynamics 228

Walter De Mulder

14 Construal 242
Zeki Hamawand

15 Concepts and Conceptualization 255

Canzhong Jiang and Kun Yang

16 Iconicity 268
Günter Radden

17 Motivation 297
Klaus-​Uwe Panther

18 Grammaticalization, Lexicalization, and Constructionalization 314

Renata Enghels and Mar Garachana Camarero

19 Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification 333

Lieselotte Brems

vi
 Contents

20 Grounding 344
Frank Brisard

21 Humor and Cognitive Linguistics 359

Salvatore Attardo

22 Linguistic Synaesthesia 372

Francesca Strik Lievers, Chu-​Ren Huang, and Jiajuan Xiong

PART III
Interface between Cognitive Linguistics and Other Fields or Disciplines 385

23 Culture in Language and Cognition 387

Chris Sinha

24 Cognitive Linguistics and Figurative Language 408

Herbert L. Colston

25 Qualifying Conceptualizations 421

Jan Nuyts

26 Cognitive Pragmatics 433

Marco Mazzone

27 Cognitive Poetics and the Problem of Metaphor 450

Jeroen Vandaele

28 Cognitive Linguistics and Discourse Studies 484

Ulrike Schröder

29 Signed Languages and Cognitive Linguistics 500

Sherman Wilcox and Rocío Martínez

30 Cognitive Linguistics and Gesture 512

Julius Hassemer and Vito Evola

31 Cognitive Linguistics and Translation Studies 526

Kairong Xiao

32 Cognitive Linguistics and Language Pedagogy 543

Dilin Liu and Tzung-​Hung Tsai

33 Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition 556

Han Luo

vii
 Contents

34 Cognitive Linguistics and Digital Lexicography 568

Esra’ M. Abdelzaher

35 Cognitive Linguistics and Phytonymic Lexicon 585

Nataliya Panasenko

36 Cognitive Linguistics and Proverbs 599

Sadia Belkhir

PART IV
New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics 613

37 Cognitive Neuroscience of Language 615

Rutvik H. Desai and Nicholas Riccardi

38 Cognitive Linguistics and Language Evolution 643

Gábor Győri

39 Diachronic Construction Grammar 662

Dirk Noël and Timothy Colleman

40 Multimodality 676
Charles Forceville

41 Foundational Issues in Biolinguistics 688

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Maria Kambanaros

42 Thinking on Behalf of the World: Radical Embodied Ecolinguistics 723

Sune Vork Steffensen and Stephen J. Cowley

43 Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Typology 737

Yuzhi Shi

Index753

viii
 FIGURES

2.1 Profiling as prominence 33

2.2 The buses are on strike 34
2.3 The stage model 35
2.4 The control cycle 36
2.5 A compositional path for Alice likes this red dress 38
2.6 Processing and constituency 39
2.7 Timescales in Amy says Bob thinks Chris knows Doris left 40
3.1 Relationship between Frame Semantics, FrameNet, Construction Grammar, and
Constructicon 45
3.2 Frame and frame element definitions of the VERIFICATION frame in FrameNet 46
3.3 Relations between the VERIFICATION frame and the SCRUTINY and the
CORRECTNESS frames 47
3.4 Valence patterns of the verbal LU to confirm in the VERIFICATION frame in FN 48
3.5 Types of information in constructions 50
3.6 Constructional and lexical networks 54
3.7 Constructional network of resultative construction with various levels of abstraction 55
3.8 Constructional productivity 57
3.9 First part of Way manner construction entry 61
3.10 Full text analysis of a corpus to determine construction entries needed to license
each sentence 66
4.1 Frame grabs of Pf-​haha. Yeah, right, from (1) 79
4.2 Frame grabs of the CC construction in (8) 86
4.3 Frame grabs of the CC construction in (9) 87
4.4 Frame grabs of the CC construction in (10) 88
4.5 Distribution of gesture types in the NewsScape sample of CC constructs 89
5.1 Relationship between semantic primes and molecules in three different languages 96
5.2 Semantic templates for physical activity verbs and ethnozoological terms 97
5.3 Lexicosyntactic frames for three subclasses of English “verbs of doing” 98
5.4 How complex concepts are successively built up from simpler ones 102
6.1 Mary and her brother Tom 112
6.2 The lexeme BOOK 113
6.3 The continuum from thought to performance 115
6.4 From meanings via words to realizations 116

ix
 Figures

6.5 Adjective + {ness} = Noun 117

6.6 How to classify Latin verbs in WG 118
6.7 The Latin rules for using {am} instead of {ēb} {ō} 119
6.8 A network for traham, “I will drag” 120
6.9 Dependency structures for two sentences 121
6.10 Measuring dependency distance 121
6.11 Predicting the order of words 122
6.12 Typical French house with sub-​tokens 123
7.1 Rating degree of sarcasm of marked and unmarked negative constructions and
their affirmative counterparts when in isolation 132
7.2 Results attesting to the speed superiority of default negative sarcasm over
nondefault affirmative sarcasm and nondefault negative literalness 133
7.3 Percentage of metaphorical interpretations of negative vs. affirmative
utterances—​English data 134
7.4 Percentage of metaphorical interpretations of negative vs. affirmative
utterances—​Russian data 135
7.5 Percentage of metaphorical interpretations of negative vs. affirmative
utterances—​German data 135
8.1 Cortical regions for sensory and motor control 153
11.1 Shared image schema 195
11.2 Summary of context types and contextual factors 201
12.1 Metaphor-​metonymy continuum based on the formal nature of the mapping system 218
16.1a Image 269
16.1b Diagram 269
16.2 Kinds of iconicity 271
16.3 Evolution of the letter “A” 271
16.4 Amplitude waveforms of the sound of a bell and of an American woman speaking
the English word ding 276
16.5 takete and maluma 277
16.6 Gestalt law of proximity 281
16.7 Continuum of iconicities 292
17.1 Symbol for ‘Yield to traffic on priority road’ 299
17.2 Footprints in the desert → camels 300
17.3 Photo of a boy ⇒ a boy 300
17.4 Conventionality and motivatedness scales 301
17.5 Motivational factors shaping the language system 303
17.6 Figure-​ground reversal 306
20.1 Nominal and clausal grounding 346
20.2 Progressive 351
20.3 Past and present progressive 352
27.1 Tertium comparationis 461
27.2 Conceptual integration network: surgeon as butcher 468
30.1 Kendon’s continuum 514
30.2 Low-​level and high-​level analysis of speaking or gesturing about a round vase,
with regard to the applicability of cognitive linguistic theory 519
36.1 Mapping of BARKING onto different target concepts 603
37.1 (a) Percentage of responders endorsing definitions of ‘Wernicke’s area’ and
‘Broca’s area’. (b) Major language-​relevant white matter pathways 616
37.2 A classification of aphasias and associated lesion sites 617
37.3 Areas involved in general semantics 619

x
 Figures

37.4 (a) Activation peaks from neuroimaging studies that use concepts that load
heavily on a particular sensory-​motor modality. (b) Regions where BOLD
activation was positively correlated with sensory-​motor attributes of words while
performing a semantic decision 621
37.5 The Dual Stream Model 628
37.6 The Lemma Model and the interactive two-​step model 628
37.7 Potential neural correlates of components of the Lemma Model 629
37.8 (a) Areas involved in sentence comprehension identified by a meta-​analysis of
neuroimaging studies. (b) Mean and standard deviations of peak locations from
studies that manipulated semantic demands or syntactic demands, compared
with corresponding less demanding sentences. (c) The main areas for sentence
comprehension identified by Dronkers et al. (2004) in a lesion-​symptom mapping
study, with one modification. (d) Areas and white matter connections identified
by Den Ouden et al. (2019) for an auditory sentence comprehension test in
a lesion-​symptom and connectome-​symptom mapping study. (e) Areas and
connections important for sentence production identified by the same study
using a sentence production priming test 631
37.9 (a) Some of the main brain regions involved in reading. (b) Some of the main
brain regions involved in writing 635

xi
 TABLES

3.1 Constructions at various levels of size and abstraction 52

3.2 Constructions instantiated by The donuts taste yummy 64
5.1 Semantic primes, English exponents 94
5.2 Samples of proposed precise and “approximate” universal semantic
molecules 103
6.1 Latin first-​person singular verbs: 6 tenses, 4 conjugations 117
7.1 Contextual resonance with 109 negative metaphors in English 136
7.2 Contextual resonance with 138 negative metaphors in German 137
7.3 Distribution of different types of resonance in the environment of
70 negative metaphors in Russian 137
17.1 Culturally motivated order of conjuncts 308
18.1 Parameters of grammaticalization according to Lehmann 316
20.1 Nominal and clausal grounding in English 346
34.1 Studies in cognitive digital lexicography 575
43.1 The lexical sources for passive morphemes 738
43.2 The lexical sources for passive markers in Chinese dialects 742
43.3 The different perspectives of construal and diverse passive markers
across languages 745
43.4 The major types of passives in the history of Chinese 747

xii
 CONTRIBUTORS

Esra’ Abdelzaher (assistant lecturer in linguistics) is currently working on the detection of lexical
and semantic gaps in digital lexicographic resources, FrameNet and WordNet, at the University of
Debrecen, Hungary. She is interested in the integration of distributional and corpus tools in cogni-
tive lexicographic research.

Salvatore Attardo is a professor of linguistics at Texas A&M University-​Commerce, USA. He has

published two monographs on humor and edited the Encyclopedia of Humor Studies (2014) and the
Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor (2017). His latest book is The Linguistics of Humor
(2020).

Sadia Belkhir is a senior lecturer in the Department of English at Mouloud Mammeri University
of Tizi-​Ouzou, Algeria. She is particularly interested in animal-​related metaphors within proverbs,
and metaphor in cognition, language, and culture. She has edited a book entitled Cognition and
Language Learning (2020). Her further recent publications include “Animal-​related concepts across
languages and cultures from a cognitive linguistic perspective”, Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(2)
(2019); “Anger metaphors in American English and Kabyle: The effect of culture”, International
Journal of Language and Culture, 3(2) (2016), among others.

Hans C. Boas is the Raymond Dickson, Alton C. Allen, and Dillon Anderson Centennial Professor
in the Department of Germanic Studies and the Department of Linguistics at the University of
Texas at Austin, USA. Before moving to Austin in 2001, he was a postdoctoral researcher with
the FrameNet project at the International Computer Science Institute and a research fellow
in the Department of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, funded by the
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (“German Academic Exchange Service”). Prior to
that, he studied law and linguistics at the Georg-​August-​Universität Göttingen, Germany. He
received both his MA (thesis: “The Passive in German”) and his PhD (dissertation: “Resultative
Constructions in English and German”) in the Linguistics Department at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 2001, he founded the Texas German Dialect Project (www.tgdp.org),
which records and documents the Texas German dialect. His 2009 book The Life and Death of
Texas German won the 2011 Leonard Bloomfield Book Award from the Linguistics Society of
America. In 2012, Hans became the director of the Linguistics Research Center, and in 2018
Chair of Germanic Studies.

xiii
 Contributors

Lieselotte Brems is associate professor of English linguistics at the University of Liège and a
research fellow at the KU Leuven, Belgium. Her research interests include grammaticalization and
(inter)subjectification, specifically within the English noun phrase. She works on size and type noun
constructions and constructions with no doubt/​chance/​wonder.

Frank Brisard is an assistant professor at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He is one of the
editors of the journal Pragmatics. His research is informed by a cognitive-​functional and usage-​
based approach to language, focusing on the semantics of grammatical constructions.

Cristiano Broccias is Full Professor of English Language at the University of Genoa (Italy). His
research interests include cognitive theories of language and English syntax (both synchronic and
diachronic), in particular “change constructions” and as-​clauses.

Mar Garachana Camarero is a teacher of Hispanic linguistics at the University of Barcelona,

Spain. Her main research interests lie within corpus linguistics, grammaticalization, and
constructionalization. She has published amongst others on Spanish and Catalan discourse markers
and articles evolution, on verbal periphrases constructionalization, and on the change of Spanish
grammar in language contact contexts.

Timothy Colleman is affiliated with the Linguistics Department (research unit GLIMS) at Ghent
University, Belgium. His primary research focus is on language variation and change in the formal
and semantic properties of argument structure constructions in Dutch and related languages.

Herbert L. Colston chairs the Department of Linguistics at the University of Alberta, Canada. He
is editor of Metaphor and Symbol, and co-​edits the book series Figurative Thought and Language.
His 2019 book, How Language Makes Meaning: Embodiment and Conjoined Antonymy, was
published by Cambridge University Press.

Stephen J. Cowley is Professor of Organisational Cognition in the Department of Language

and Communication, University of Southern Denmark (Slagelse Campus). He is the animator of
the distributed language movement and President of the International Society for the Study of
Interactivity, Language and Cognition.

Rutvik H. Desai, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of South Carolina, USA. He
has broad training in cognitive science, and currently studies neural basis of word meaning. His
work has contributed to our understanding of embodiment of concepts, speech processing, reading,
and metaphors.

Renata Enghels is appointed as a professor of Hispanic and Contrastive Romance linguis-

tics at Ghent University, Belgium. Her main interests are in corpus research within a functional
and cognitive perspective. She has published on verbal argument structures and constructions in
Romance languages, polysemy, grammaticalization and constructionalization, and the grammar of
codeswitching, among other topics.

Vito Evola is a researcher in cognitive linguistics and multimodal communication at the Universidade
Nova de Lisboa, Portugal. His research on language, culture, and cognition analyzes data of ordinary
and specialized contexts, including healthcare, forensics, religious discourse, and performing arts.

Charles Forceville works in Media Studies, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His key
research question is how visuals convey meaning, alone or in combination with other modes.

xiv
 Contributors

A cognitivist, he publishes on multimodal narration and rhetoric in documentary, animation,

advertising, comics, and cartoons.

Dirk Geeraerts is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Leuven, Belgium. He is the founder
of the journal Cognitive Linguistics, the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,
and the author of, among others, Diachronic Prototype Semantics (1997), Words and Other Wonders
(2006), and Theories of Lexical Semantics (2010).

Rachel Giora is Professor at Tel Aviv University, Israel. Her research focuses on the Graded Salience
Hypothesis and the Defaultness Hypothesis. She has published three books—​On Our Mind, Metaphor
and Figurative Language, and Doing Pragmatics Interculturally—​alongside over 140 articles.

Cliff Goddard is Professor of Linguistics at Griffith University, Australia. He is a leading pro-

ponent of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach to semantics and its sister theory, the cul-
tural scripts approach to ethnopragmatics.

Kleanthes K. Grohmann is Professor of Biolinguistics at the University of Cyprus and Director

of the Cyprus Acquisition Team (CAT Lab). He has published widely in generative syntax, lan-
guage development, and multilingualism. Apart from other books and volumes, he is co-​author of
the textbook Understanding Minimalism, co-​editor of The Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics,
co-​editor of the John Benjamins book series Language Faculty and Beyond, and editor-​in-​chief of
the open-​access journal Biolinguistics.

Gábor Győri is associate professor and head of the Department of English Linguistics at the
University of Pécs, Hungary. His interest in the evolution of language stems from studying both
ethology and linguistics before turning solely to linguistics, in which he then earned his PhD. His
research areas include language and cognition, language and culture, categorization, metaphor, and
semantic change.

Zeki Hamawand is Professor of English Language and Linguistics at Kirkuk University and
Sulaimani University, Iraq. He specializes in cognitive linguistics and has published books,
textbooks, and articles on morphology, lexicology, syntax, and semantics. His books include
Atemporal Complement Clauses in English: A Cognitive Grammar Analysis (2002), Suffixal
Rivalry in Adjective Formation: A Cognitive-​Corpus Analysis (2007), Morpho-​Lexical Alternation
in Noun Formation (2008), and The Semantics of English Negative Prefixes (2009). His textbooks
include Morphology in English: Word Formation in Cognitive Grammar (2011), and Semantics: A
Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning (2016), and Modern Schools of Linguistic Thought: A
Crash Course (2020). Zeki Hamawand can be reached at zeki.hamawand@gmail.com.

Julius Hassemer was a postdoctoral research fellow (German Research Foundation, DFG) at the
University of São Paulo, Brazil (PhD at the RWTH Aachen University, Germany). He proposes a
theory of gesture form and a gesture taxonomy and today consults on gesture controls for product
user interfaces.

Thomas Hoffmann is Professor and Chair of English Language and Linguistics at the Catholic
University Eichstätt-​Ingolstadt, Germany. His main research interests are usage-​based construction
grammar, language variation and change, and multimodal communication. He has published widely
in international journals such as Cognitive Linguistics, Journal of English Linguistics, English
World-​Wide and Corpus Linguistics, and Linguistic Theory. His 2011 monograph Preposition
Placement in English as well as his 2019 book Comparing English Comparatives were both

xv
 Contributors

published by Cambridge University Press and he is currently writing a textbook on “Construction

grammar: The structure of English” for the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics series.

Chu-​Ren Huang is Chair Professor in the Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. His research areas include Chinese, computational, and corpus lin-
guistics; as well as lexical semantics and ontology. He is the editor of Lingua Sinica (de Gruyter),
Studies in Natural Language Processing (Cambridge), and Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics (PKU
Press/​Springer), etc.

Richard Hudson retired in 2004 after 40 years of linguistics at UCL. After discovering linguistics
during a first degree in foreign languages he did a PhD on the grammar of the Cushitic language
Beja. He then worked for six years as a research assistant with Michael Halliday at UCL, from
whom he caught a life-​long enthusiasm for applying linguistics to education; since retirement he
has founded and led the UK Linguistics Olympiad as well as trying to develop and promote Word
Grammar. He has a wife, Gaynor, and two daughters.

Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez is Professor of Linguistics at the University of La Rioja,
Spain. He specializes in cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, and construction grammar. He is the
editor of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics (John Benjamins) and co-​editor of Applications of
Cognitive Linguistics (Mouton).

Canzhong Jiang is currently a postdoctoral researcher at College of International Studies,

Southwest University, China. His main research interest is in cognitive linguistics, especially his-
torical cognitive linguistics and construction grammar.

Maria Kambanaros is Professor of Speech Pathology at the University of South Australia. She
publishes on acquired language disorders, developmental language impairments, rehabilitation, and
multilingualism. She is the author of Diagnostic Issues in Speech Therapy (in Greek), a univer-
sity textbook adopted as the standard text in speech and language therapy programs in Greece
and Cyprus. She is co-​editor of the Equinox book series Communication Disorders and Clinical
Linguistics and associate editor of the open-​access journal Biolinguistics.

Zoltán Kövecses is Professor Emeritus at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. He has
published widely on conceptual metaphor theory. His current research interests include the rela-
tionship between metaphor and context, that between metaphor and culture, and the multilevel and
contextual view of metaphor. He is the co-​editor of Cognitive Linguistic Studies (John Benjamins)
with Professor Xu Wen.

Francesca Strik Lievers is a researcher at the University of Genoa, Italy. Her main interests are
in lexical semantics and figurative language. She has worked on the linguistic encoding of percep-
tual experience, from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective, and has conducted extensive
research on synaesthetic metaphors.

Dilin Liu is Professor in the English Department at the University of Alabama, USA. His research
focuses on corpus-​based description and teaching of English lexis and grammar. He has published
extensively including numerous articles in journals, such as Applied Linguistics, Cognitive
Linguistics, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
Journal of Linguistics, Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and
TESOL Quarterly, as well as six books.

xvi
 Contributors

Han Luo is an assistant professor of Chinese at Lafayette College, USA. She received a PhD in
foreign language education from the University of Texas at Austin in 2011, and a PhD in linguistics
and applied linguistics from Beijing Foreign Studies University in 2007.

Rocío Martínez holds a PhD in linguistics from Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. She is
assistant researcher at CONICET, the national research institution in Argentina. She also teaches
signed language linguistics and contrastive analysis at Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Marco Mazzone is Full Professor of Philosophy of Language at the University of Catania, Italy.
His latest book is Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Inferences, Consciousness (de Gruyter).
His current research focuses on cognitive processes in pragmatic comprehension, spontaneous
reasoning, and rationality.

Walter De Mulder is Full Professor of General and French Linguistics at the University of
Antwerp (Belgium) and member of the research groups GaP and C-APP. His research interests
include (usage-​based approaches to) grammaticalization and frame-​based cognitive approaches
to reference, meaning, and flexibility of meaning (including approaches to metaphor). He has
worked intensively on the semantics and pragmatics of tense, aspect and mood markers, refer-
ential expressions, and prepositions, mainly in French, but occasionally also in other languages,
both from a synchronic and a diachronic point of view.

Dirk Noël teaches linguistics in the School of English of the University of Hong Kong. Over the
past 15 years his research has primarily consisted of theoretical and descriptive work in the field of
diachronic construction grammar.

Jan Nuyts is Professor, Linguistics Department, University of Antwerp (Belgium). His major
research area is cognitive-​functional semantics. His current focus of attention is the cognitive
and functional structure of qualificational categories (in particular the modal categories), and its
implications for the language and thought issue.

Nataliya Panasenko is Professor in the Department of Language Communication, University of

SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Slovakia. Her sphere of research interests is rather wide and
covers different aspects of language analysis: phonetic, lexical, grammatical, stylistic, etc. She is
the author of several books and numerous articles highlighting various topics: language and culture,
language and cognition, cognitive onomasiology, and many others.

Klaus-​Uwe Panther is Professor Emeritus of English Linguistics at the University of Hamburg,

Germany. He was one of the founding members of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association
in 2004 and served as its president (2004–​2008). He also was the president of the International
Cognitive Linguistics Association (2005–​2007). He has been a keynote speaker at various inter-
national conferences and a visiting scholar at Indiana University (Bloomington), the University
of California (Berkeley), the University Michel de Montaigne (Bordeaux, France), Eötvös Loránd
University (Budapest, Hungary), Southern Illinois University (Carbondale), and the University of
la Rioja (Logroño, Spain). In 2007, he was granted an honorary professorship by the International
Studies University in Xi’an (China). From 2012 to 2014 he served as Distinguished Visiting
Professor at Nanjing Normal University (China). His research interests include cognitive linguistics
and pragmatics, with a special focus on the interaction of grammatical structure and conceptual-​
pragmatic meaning. His most recent monograph (co-​authored with Linda Thornburg) is Motivation
and Inference: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach (2017)

xvii
 Contributors

Günter Radden is Professor Emeritus of English Linguistics at Hamburg University, Germany.

His publications include Cognitive English Grammar, co-​authored with René Dirven, and many
co-​edited books and articles on cognitive grammar, conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy,
and motivation in language.

Nicholas Riccardi is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at the University of South
Carolina, USA. He uses lesion-​symptom mapping and neuroimaging to investigate the neural bases
of language and concepts. His work has shown the importance of action-​perception systems in con-
cept representation.

Ulrike Schröder is Professor of German Studies and Linguistics at the Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Brazil. She studied communication, German studies, and psychology at the University of
Essen, Germany, where she obtained her doctor’s degree (2003) and her Venia Legendi (habili-
tation) (2012). Her research interests include cognitive and cultural linguistics, intercultural
pragmatics, and interactional linguistics.

Yuzhi Shi has a PhD from Stanford University (1999), an MA from the University of California San
Diego (1995), and is associate professor at the National University of Singapore. He has published
more than 20 books and more than 160 papers in cognitive linguistics, linguistic typology, and
grammaticalization theory with special reference to Chinese. His book, The Evolution of Chinese
Grammar, has been accepted for publication by Cambridge University Press.

Chris Sinha is Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science at Hunan University, China, Honorary
Professor at the University of East Anglia, UK, and Visiting Professor at Southwest University,
Chongqing, China. He is Past President (2005–​2007) of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association
and Past President (2011–​2013) of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association.

Sune Vork Steffensen is Professor of Language, Interaction, and Cognition in the Department
of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark (Odense Campus), Associate
Chair at the Danish Institute for Advanced Study, and Guest Professor at South China Agricultural
University and Southwest University (China). He is the editor-​in-​chief of Language Sciences.

Dennis Tay is associate professor in the Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
He is trained in linguistics, quantitative analysis, and computational mathematics. His research
interests include cognitive linguistics, metaphor theory, mental healthcare communication, and dis-
course data analytics.

John R. Taylor, until his retirement, was senior lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Otago,
New Zealand, having previously held positions in Germany and South Africa. He is the author
of Possessives in English (1996), Cognitive Grammar (2002), Linguistic Categorization (3rd ed.
2003), and The Mental Corpus (2012), all published by Oxford University Press, and co-​editor of
the Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (2014).

Tzung-​Hung Tsai is an assistant professor in the Department of Applied English at National

Pingtung University, Taiwan. His primary research and teaching interests are EFL teaching meth-
odology, teacher training, listening/​reading, and business English.

xviii
 Contributors

Jeroen Vandaele teaches literary translation (Spanish–​Dutch) and Hispanic literatures at Ghent
University (Belgium). From 2008 until 2017 he was a professor of Spanish at the University of
Oslo (Norway), where he taught courses in cognitive poetics, pragmatics, and translation studies.

Xu Wen is Professor of Linguistics at Southwest University, China. His research interests include
cognitive linguistics and pragmatics, with a special focus on construction grammar, metaphor and
metonymy theory, cognitive and intercultural pragmatics, and cognitive translation studies. He is
the co-​editor of Cognitive Linguistic Studies (John Benjamins) with Professor Zoltán Kövecses. He
is the president of the China Cognitive Translation Association.

Sherman Wilcox is Professor of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, USA. He is the author of
numerous scholarly articles and books on signed languages, gesture, Deaf culture, and interpreting.

Kairong Xiao is an associate professor of translation studies and the chair of the English Department
at Southwest University, China. He is a member of the Translation Research Empiricism Cognition
(TREC) network and the deputy secretary of the Society of Cognitive Translation Studies. He has
published monographs, papers, and book chapters on cognitive linguistics and cognitive translation
studies.

Jiajuan Xiong is an associate professor at Southwestern University of Finance and Economics,

China. Her research interests lie in syntax of Chinese and Sinhala, synaesthesia, and philosophy of
language in Therāvada Buddhism.

Kun Yang is currently an associate professor at College of International Studies, Southwest

University, China. His main research interest is cognitive linguistics, especially construction
grammar and cognitive semantics.

xix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A big project like this one is not an easy job for the editors, but we were fortunate, first of all, to
have such a wonderful team of authors. So we wish to thank all the contributors for their hard work
and spirit of cooperation. The handbook would not have come into being without all their enthusi-
astic support.
We are especially grateful that many leadings experts in Cognitive Linguistics were willing
and able to contribute to the volume, along with their help and many suggestions. We want to give
our special thanks here to Hans C. Boas, Herbert L. Colston, Charles Forceville, Dirk Geeraerts,
Rachel Giora, Kleanthes K. Grohmann, Thomas Hoffmann, Richard Hudson, Francisco José Ruiz
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Zoltán Kövecses, Gitte Kristiansen, Jan Nuyts, Klaus-​Uwe Panther, Günter
Radden, Chris Sinha, Sune Vork Steffensen, and Sherman Wilcox.
Our thanks also go to Routledge, and especially to Ze’ev Sudry and Helena Parkinson, for
their support, advice, and understanding for the numerous delays in the production of the volume.
Finally, we would like to thank Xu’s student assistants, Weiguo Si, Yuxin Qu, Xinglong Wang,
Bo Li, and others, for their good work with the formatting and preparation of the manuscript.

xx
 INTRODUCTION
Cognitive Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect

Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

1. Introduction
Cognitive Linguistics is “the scientific study of the nature of thought and its expression in lan-
guage” (Lakoff 2004: 123). It began to emerge in the 1970s and has been increasingly active since
the 1980s. In 1987, the two “Bibles” of Cognitive Linguistics were published: George Lakoff’s
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, and the first volume of Ronald W. Langacker’s Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar. Then, in the spring of 1989, the first international cognitive linguistics
conference was held in Duisburg, Germany, and the establishment of the International Cognitive
Linguistics Association (ICLA), together with the journal Cognitive Linguistics in 1990, “marked
the birth of cognitive linguistics as a broadly grounded, self-​conscious intellectual movement”
(Langacker 1990: ix).
Cognitive linguistics is a new paradigm of linguistics, which can chiefly be classified into “macro-​
cognitive linguistics” (with a lower-​case “c”) and “micro-​cognitive linguistics” (with capitalized
“C”). Any linguistic theory, as long as it takes human language as a mental phenomenon, belongs
to macro-​cognitive linguistics. For example, Chomsky’s Generative Grammar and Jackendoff’s
Conceptual Semantics fall into this category. Cognitive Linguistics, the focus of this handbook,
differs from the Chomskyan tradition in dealing with the nature of grammar, the core place of
meaning, and the relation between language and human cognition. The Chomskyan tradition has a
view of language that makes strong commitments about the primacy of syntax, disregarding the role
of semantics and pragmatics in linguistic theoretical construction; whereas Cognitive Linguistic
theories are semantics-​and usage-​(or pragmatics)-​based, and take meaning as the core of linguistic
studies. The other important aspect of the Chomskyan tradition is the assumption that linguistic
knowledge is independent of other cognitive faculties, which leads to the claim of the autonomy of
syntax and the modularity of language. But Cognitive Linguistics does not declare that language is
autonomous. Instead, it conceives of linguistic cognition as an inseparable part of general human
cognition.
Cognitive Linguistics is also somewhat different from functional linguistics, although they have
a fundamental concern with respect to referring to extra-​linguistic potentials to explain linguistic
behavior. Cognitive Linguistics focuses on the instruments that language provides for understanding
human embodiment in the physical world, whereas functional linguistics scrutinizes linguistic
structure as it reflects its use in communication. In addition, Cognitive Linguistics emphasizes the

1
 Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

relationships among conceptual entities represented in linguistic structures, whereas functional lin-
guistics often makes use of natural discourse data.
Cognitive Linguistics has two main purposes: (1) to study how cognitive mechanisms like
memory, categorization, metaphor, metonymy, attention, and imagery are used during language
behavior; and (2) to develop psychologically viable models of language that cover the broadest
possible range of linguistic phenomena, including idioms and figurative language.
Cognitive Linguistics is not a single linguistic theory. Instead, it is an enterprise, an approach, a
school, a movement, a perspective, or a paradigm that has adopted a large number of implications
or achievements from cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience, more particularly, from phil-
osophy, cognitive psychology, gestalt psychology, anthropology, brain science, and cultural studies,
on top of adding many new perspectives to the study of language and mind, thereby improving the
scientificity of linguistic studies.
Cognitive Linguistics is defined in terms of two primary commitments: the Generalization
Commitment and the Cognitive Commitment (Lakoff 1990). The former concerns the general
principles which govern all aspects of human language, whereas the latter strives for an account
of human language which should be in accordance with what is known about the mind and the
brain from other disciplines. Lakoff (1990) said: “If we are fortunate, these commitments will
mesh: the general principles we seek will be cognitively real. If not, the cognitive commitment
takes priority: we are concerned with cognitively real generalizations.” These two commitments
have offered specific guiding principles for the study of such core areas of language as phon-
ology, morphosyntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and the interdisciplinary study between Cognitive
Linguistics and some other disciplines.
Cognitive Linguistics has the following major guiding principles or fundamental hypotheses
which guide the cognitive approach to the study of language and mind:

• Language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty, but a main part of human cognition.
• Human languages are an open-​ended inventory of symbolic units in which forms are conven-
tionally paired with meanings (i.e., constructions).
• Meaning is what language is all about.
• Meaning construction is conceptualization.
• Semantic structure is conceptual structure.
• Conceptual structure is embodied.
• Meaning representation is encyclopedic.
• Grammar is meaningful.
• Knowledge of language basically emerges from language use.

These hypotheses or guiding principles have not only defined the scope and contents of Cognitive
Linguistics, but have also led cognitive linguists to explore the invisible relations between human
language and human cognition.

2. The Main Contents of Cognitive Linguistics Research

Studies in the Cognitive Linguistics paradigm have different perspectives or orientations governed
by the shared common set of guiding principles and hypotheses presented above. These include the
following aspects.

2.1 Phenomenology-​Based Research

Research from this perspective is primarily based on phenomenology, which is proposed by
Edmund Husserl (1859–​1938). One important slogan of phenomenology is “Go back to the thing

2
 Introduction

itself” (auf die Sachen selbst zurueckgehen). In other words, we should get rid of all prejudices and
confront the thing itself rather than what’s behind it. The American philosopher Thomas Nagel fam-
ously mused on the question of “What is it like to be a bat?” (1974). This means that embodiment
is important. As to language, this implies that our bodily experiences are important for us to know
what language is.
Cognitive Linguistic research based on phenomenology mainly consists of prototype theory,
prototype semantics, lexical network theory, conceptual metaphor theory, conceptual metonymy
theory, embodied realism, and cognitive pragmatics. Great achievements have been made in all
these areas. These achievements are applied not only to linguistic research, but also to various fields
such as culture, society, politics, art, religion, and so forth.

2.2 Gestalt-​Psychology-​Based Cognitive Linguistic Research

Gestalt psychology, which is also under the influence of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology,
advocates that psychology should focus on phenomenological experience or, in other words, on
non-​mental and non-​physical neutral experience. In the observation of phenomenological experi-
ence, phenomena should be kept as they are instead of being analyzed as perceptual elements,
and phenomenological experience should be conceived as a whole or gestalt. Cognitive Linguistic
research based on Gestalt psychology mainly includes Langacker’s cognitive grammar, construc-
tion grammar, and Talmy’s cognitive semantics. Langacker’s works (1987/​1991) are classic and
worthy of careful and in-​depth study. His ideas are presented inclusively in Taylor’s (2002) intro-
ductory book. Construction grammar was developed from the early research by Fillmore, Kay, and
O’Connor (1988). There are also other varieties of constructional approach to grammar such as
Lakoff and Goldberg’s Cognitive Construction Grammar (CCxG), Croft’s Radical Construction
Grammar (RCG), Bergen’s Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG), Steel’s Fluid Construction
Grammar (FCG), and Sag and Michaelis’s Sign-​Based Construction Grammar. In general,
Langacker’s cognitive grammar can also be called construction grammar since his “symbolic units”
are essentially equivalent to “constructions” in construction grammar. The theories of construction
grammar have been extensively applied to language acquisition, computational linguistics, transla-
tion studies, among others.

2.3 Cognitive Discourse and Poetics Research

Early research on Cognitive Linguistics focused on the semantics of the lexicon and syntax, less
attention being paid to pragmatics and discourse. As we know, lexical-​syntactic structures in lan-
guage appear to be systematically related to human cognitive structures and processes. Therefore,
to explore how language is organized in discourse is beneficial to understanding human cogni-
tive structure and processes. At present, the cognitive study of discourse is an important trend
(Tenbrink 2020). Research in this field contains Fauconnier’s mental space theory and conceptual
blending theory, cognitive stylistics, cognitive poetics, cognitive narratology, textual world, and the
representation of discourse.
Since Lakoff and Turner (1989) launched their pioneering work on cognitive poetics, it has
made great progress over the past three decades. A large number of monographs and volumes have
been published, such as Stockwell (2002), Gavins and Steen (2003), Brône and Vandaele (2009).
Poetic metaphor, an important concept of cognitive poetics, is a key concept which cognitive
poetics has given much attention to. One of the most amazing findings is the fact that most poetic
language is based on daily conceptual metaphors. It has been proven that in literary works the
frequency of use of creative literary metaphors is much lower than that of conceptual metaphors
based on experience. Therefore, in the research on cognitive poetics, conceptual metaphor theory
plays a major role.

3
 Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

2.4 Cognitive Sociolinguistic Research

Since the “social turn” in linguistics, there has been a common consensus that language has a close
connection with the social world. Hence, the study of human language has to consider the social
dimension of language. The “social turn” of Cognitive Linguistics has resulted in two branches of
Cognitive Linguistics: cognitive sociolinguistics, and social cognitive linguistics.
Cognitive sociolinguistics, as a burgeoning field of linguistic research, is broadly known as a
convergence of Cognitive Linguistics and sociolinguistics. One of the most important tenets of
Cognitive Linguistics is that “meaning is what language is all about” (Langacker 1987: 12). As we
know, meaning does not exist in isolation, but is realized in certain socio-​pragmatic environments.
As Geeraerts et al. (2010) have pointed out: “It [meaning] is created in and transmitted through
the interaction of people, and that is why the definition and the basic architecture of language are
recognized by Cognitive Linguistics as involving not just cognition, but socially and culturally
situated cognition.”
Research on cognitive sociolinguistics mainly involves the following topics: a usage-​based cog-
nitive approach to language, cognitive lexical variation research, cognitive ideology research, cul-
tural cognitive models, language cultural model theory, language policy, social political system
research, etc.
Social cognitive linguistics or sociocognitive linguistics (Croft 2009; Wen 2019), on the other
hand, is a systemic investigation into human language on the basis of social cognition theory. It is
primarily concerned with how the representation of language knowledge, language acquisition,
language use (including language production and processing), and language change or evolution
are influenced by (embodied) social cognition. It also offers a new perspective for the development
of Cognitive Linguistics.

2.5 Cognitive Psycholinguistic Research

Cognitive psycholinguistics is a novel field of research which integrates Cognitive Linguistics
with psycholinguistics and language acquisition. Within the field of cognitive psycholinguistics,
much attention has been paid to the following topics: language processing, image schemas, the
understanding of figurative language, language acquisition, a usage-​based theory of acquisition,
growth of lexical network, etc. In the view of Cognitive Linguistics, most of our knowledge is
imagistic, not propositional. Image schemas are the foundation of thinking and reasoning. But what
is an image schema? How does it come into being? What is the role of image schemas in the con-
struction of thoughts? These questions are important topics in the field of Cognitive Linguistics.
The understanding of figurative language is the main content of cognitive psycholinguistics
which relates to the understanding of figures of speech like metaphor, metonymy, irony, and so on
(Gibbs 1994; Turner 1996). Usage-​based and construction-​oriented language acquisition research
is an important new development in the study of first and second language acquisition. Many
achievements in this field have been accomplished by Tomasello (2003), Achard and Niemeier
(2004), Goldberg (2006), and Robinson and Ellis (2008).

2.6 Cognitive Historical Linguistics and the Contrastive Study of Languages

Cognitive historical linguistics is a combination of Cognitive Linguistics and historical lin-
guistics, the aim of which is systematically using the theories of Cognitive Linguistics to deal
with historical/​diachronic linguistic problems. Cognitive historical linguistics mainly includes
the following fields: diachronic semantics, diachronic construction grammar, (de)grammatical-
ization, subjectification, etc. Geeraerts’s (1997) research into diachronic prototype semantics
was innovative and he invoked prototype theory as the scientific paradigm to research some key

4
 Introduction

issues in traditional lexical semantics such as typical characteristics of semantic evolution and
the motivation and mechanism of semantic evolution. Research on grammaticalization and the
combination of grammaticalization and subjectification, as a very important content of cognitive
diachronic linguistics, has reaped a rich harvest. Traugott and Trousdale’s (2013) and Hilpert’s
(2013) study of constructionalization and constructional change has provided valuable insight
into the nature of constructions and for the investigation of diachronic construction grammar
(Traugott 2014; Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer, & Gildea 2015; Hoffmann 2019; Sommerer &
Smirnova 2020).
The cognitive approach to contrastive language study applies the theories of Cognitive
Linguistics to study languages cross-​linguistically, including cross-​cultural semantics, cultural lin-
guistics, and cognitive linguistic typology. Research into cross-​cultural semantics and cognitive
linguistic typology within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics is a recent development, worthy
of exploring in depth.

2.7 Applied Cognitive Linguistic Research

Applied Cognitive Linguistics, as its name suggests, is a field of research which aims to address
practical linguistic problems with the apparatus of Cognitive Linguistics. Applied Cognitive
Linguistics currently focuses on the fields of ideology, language acquisition, language pedagogy,
translation, and lexicology. In a general sense, the study of Applied Cognitive Linguistics has two
sides. On the one hand, we make use of the theories and methodologies of Cognitive Linguistics
to solve linguistic and social problems; on the other hand, the social and linguistic phenomena are
shown as the testing ground for the theories of Cognitive Linguistics. Therefore, Applied Cognitive
Linguistics appears to be a promising land of research. Many convincing achievements have been
made in the work of Tabakowska (1993), Pütz et al. (2001), Holme (2004), Tyler et al. (2005),
Caballero (2005), De Knop and De Rycker (2008), Littlemore (2009), Tyler (2012), Bielak and
Pawlak (2013), Rojo and Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (2013), among others.

3. The Chapters of This Handbook

The chapters contributed by cognitive linguists from all over the world provide a multifaceted view
on the panorama of Cognitive Linguistics, focusing on three major issues: (1) the fundamental the-
ories, assumptions, and methodology of Cognitive Linguistics; (2) the core topics and concepts of
Cognitive Linguistics; and (3) the interface between Cognitive Linguistics and other disciplines.
The handbook, consisting of four parts, is structured according to the principle “from theoretical
hypotheses to practical usage, then to interdisciplinary research”. It places special emphasis on the
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary study of language and mind. Within each part, the chapters
are roughly organized in terms of their essentiality and importance. The first part gives a bird’s-​
eye view of the basic theories and hypotheses of Cognitive Linguistics. In Part II, some central
topics of Cognitive Linguistics are addressed. The chapters in Part III concentrate on the inter-
face between Cognitive Linguistics and other disciplines. The last part is about the new trend of
Cognitive Linguistics.

Part I: Basic Theories and Hypotheses

The seven chapters in this part provide an introduction to and deep reflections on basic theories and
hypotheses.
Chapter 1 (Dirk Geeraerts) comprises the diverse set of descriptive models developed within cog-
nitive linguistics for the analysis of linguistic meaning, including notions like prototypicality, radial
networks, conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, frame semantics, and construal mechanisms

5
 Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

in grammar. The chapter describes the complementarity between these approaches, and identifies
their commonalities in terms of a conception of meaning that is perspectival, dynamic, and experi-
ential. Open issues include the proper balance between a psychological and sociohistorical concep-
tion of cognition, the methodology of cognitive semantics, and the theoretical integration of the
various descriptive models.
Chapter 2 (Cristiano Broccias) illustrates the key features and development in cognitive
grammar. It starts by focusing on the so-​called grammar-​lexicon continuum. Then it discusses key
cognitive abilities and cognitive models. Among the former are association, categorization, automa-
tization, construal, the reference-​point ability, and fictivity. The latter include the stage model, the
billiard-​ball model, and the control cycle. The rest of the chapter is concerned with introducing the
conceptual characterization of grammatical classes and roles and illustrating the claim that trad-
itional hierarchical constituency is neither necessary nor desirable within a dynamic account of
language use.
Chapter 3 (Hans C. Boas) provides an overview of the theory of Construction Grammar and its
sister theory Frame Semantics, both developed at the University of California, Berkeley, during the
1980s and 1990s. The first part provides a historical overview of Construction Grammar and Frame
Semantics, highlighting their connections with the research of Charles Fillmore on Case Grammar
in the late 1960s. This overview is followed by a discussion of the Berkeley FrameNet project
(founded in 1997), which has applied the theoretical principles of Frame Semantics to the creation of
a lexicographic database of English that also includes detailed information about valence patterns of
English verbs, nouns, adjectives, and prepositions. The main part of this chapter discusses the main
principles of Construction Grammar and shows how constructionist research addresses topics such
as the lexicon-​syntax continuum, argument structure constructions and other types of constructions,
constructional families and networks, corpus data, productivity, motivation, frequency, the role of
formalization, and issues relevant for contrastive linguistics. The chapter continues with a review
of how constructionist insights have been applied to grammaticography, yielding a more specific
approach that has come to be known as constructicography. The last part of the chapter addresses
open issues such as the typology of constructions, interactions of constructions, and systematic dis-
covery methods for finding and analyzing constructions.
Chapter 4 (Thomas Hoffmann) is about multimodal construction grammar. Human communi-
cation is inherently multimodal. Whenever people communicate face-​to-​face, they do not just rely
on language, but also use gestures and stance as well as facial expressions to communicate their
wishes, intentions, as well as information. The chapter illustrates how the most successful cognitive
theory of language, Construction Grammar, can explain the creative online processes that underlie
our ability to communicate multimodally.
Chapter 5 (Cliff Goddard) overviews the theory, practice, and applications of one of the more
productive and versatile approaches in Cognitive Linguistics, the Natural Semantic Metalanguage
approach originated by Anna Wierzbicka. The NSM approach describes meanings using simple
cross-​translatable words. The chapter introduces the basic tenets and concepts behind the approach,
such as semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates and explications. It sketches
NSM’s intellectual history and theory development over 40 years, identifies major research themes
and critical issues, and presents examples of recent work in cultural pragmatics, lexical semantics,
and lexicogrammar.
Chapter 6 (Richard Hudson) focuses on Word Grammar. This theory agrees with other the-
ories in the family of cognitive linguistics that human beings use the same mental apparatus for
language as for other kinds of knowledge; but some of its assumptions about this knowledge are
distinctive, and lead to distinctive linguistic analyses. Language is a single integrated network of
atomic nodes, and so is the structure of a sentence: a rich dependency structure rather than a tree.
The underlying logic is default inheritance applied to taxonomies which include relational concepts
as well as entities, so the language network contains an open-​ended taxonomy of relations; and

6
 Introduction

these taxonomies extend upwards into general knowledge as well as downwards into the tokens and
‘sub-​tokens’ of performance. These sub-​tokens interact with dependency structure to create a new
token of the head word for each dependent, a new compromise between dependency structure and
phrase structure. The cognitive assumptions also lead to insightful analyses of logical semantics,
lexical semantics, learning, processing, and sociolinguistic structures.
Chapter 7 (Rachel Giora) is on default metaphorical, sarcastic, and metaphorically sar-
castic constructions. Nine experiments and seven corpus-​based studies have been run to test the
Defaultness Hypothesis. Defaultness is defined in terms of an unconditional, automatic response
to a stimulus. To be interpreted by default, stimuli should be novel, free of internal cues, such as
semantic anomaly or internal incongruity, and free of contextual information. To prompt sarcasm by
default, items should involve strong attenuation by means of negation of highly positive concepts;
to prompt metaphoricalness by default, items should involve a negation marker. Results show that
as predicted, such constructions were interpreted sarcastically and metaphorically by default. This
was true of English, Russian, and German.

Part II: Central Topics in Cognitive Linguistics

This part presents an overview of the major central topics in cognitive linguistics. It begins from
the basic notion of “embodiment” and proceeds to the common but intriguing topic of “linguistic
synaesthesia”.
Chapter 8 (Xu Wen and Canzhong Jiang) is about the cornerstone “embodiment” of Cognitive
Linguistics or even the second generation of cognitive science. Mankind’s cognitive processes
are realized, not only in the brain, but also in the body and the world. Our concepts are shaped
by the physical constraints of our body. “Embodiment in the field of cognitive science refers to
understanding the role of an agent’s own body in its everyday, situated cognition” (Gibbs 2005: 1).
As a multidisciplinary theoretical construct in nature, embodiment is becoming a hot topic in
various disciplines such as cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and linguistics as
well. It is also the basis on which the cognitive linguistics enterprise is built. Cognitive Linguistics
assumes that language as part of cognition is not distinguished from general cognition. Therefore,
language is also embodied given that general cognition is found to be embodied. This chapter
examines what cognitive linguistic research has revealed about the embodiment of language from
different aspects including conceptualization underlying language, language processing, language
development, and language change.
Chapter 9 (Dennis Tay) is on image schemas forming the basic building blocks of abstract con-
ceptual representations. They combine different sensory modalities and contribute rich inferential
structures that underpin a diverse range of linguistic phenomena. They are discussed in various
disciplines like philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, and cultural studies, and play a central
role in key cognitive linguistic theories like cognitive grammar, force dynamics, and conceptual
metaphor. Contemporary areas of application include language acquisition, literary and discourse
analysis, design, and psychological counseling. This chapter aims at a comprehensive overview of
image schemas with emphasis on the aforementioned aspects.
Chapter 10 (Xu Wen and Zhengling Fu) is concerned with categories and categorization. It starts
by outlining the development, advantage, and limitations of four categorization theories, i.e., the
classical theory, prototype theory, vantage theory, and the theory of idealized cognitive models.
Level of categorization is then illustrated to reveal categorization structure and the interaction of
different levels. Then the Chinese view of category is introduced. As a process of dynamic changes
in categories, decategorization is discussed as well. This chapter finally addresses the application of
categorization to fuzzy linguistics, translation study, and language learning and teaching.
Chapter 11 (Zoltán Kövecses) provides an explanation of the main features of what can be
taken to be “standard” conceptual metaphor theory (as proposed by Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 1999),

7
 Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

alongside what can be called extended conceptual metaphor theory (as proposed by Kövecses
2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory differs from the standard view in two particular ways;
namely, in that it is not only a cognitive theory of metaphor but it has a strong contextual compo-
nent and it views each conceptual metaphor as existing not only on a single level (that of domains
or frames) but simultaneously on four hierarchical levels of schematicity (those of image schemas,
domains, frames, and mental spaces).
Chapter 12 (Ruiz de Mendoza) addresses metonymy. Metonymy was first studied in connection
to metaphor. As time went by, scholars began to identify areas of study where metonymy played
an independent role too, such as illocution and grammatical conversion. Despite the increasing
number of studies, including book-​length ones, there is still a pressing need for an integrative
framework that levels out the differences among competing accounts. This chapter overviews some
major proposals on the nature and scope of metonymy and offers a comprehensive framework cap-
able of integrating previous insights and offering solutions to some of the still problematic aspects
of the phenomenon.
Chapter 13 (Walter De Mulder) is about force dynamics. It is a notion developed by Leonard
Talmy to designate a schematic conceptual system grounding not only the meaning of causatives,
but also that of other verbs and expressions which all express in some way the exertion and inter-
action of forces or have meanings that can be analyzed as such, albeit metaphorically.
Chapter 14 (Zeki Hamawand) explores the phenomenon of construal and underlines its signifi-
cance in language. In Cognitive Linguistics, the use of a linguistic item is governed by the particular
construal imposed on its content relative to the communicative needs of the discourse. Construal
refers to the mental ability of a speaker to conceptualize a situation in alternate ways. Making use
of the lexical resources provided by language, the speaker can map the conceptualizations into
different linguistic realizations. Each linguistic realization may describe the same content but does
so in a peculiar way. The aim is to show that no two expressions are synonymous even if they share
the same conceptual content. They differ in terms of the type of construal or dimension of con-
strual which the speaker employs to describe their common content. Each construal or dimension
of construal represents a distinct meaning, namely each expression imposes a particular image on
the content it describes.
Chapter 15 (Canzhong Jiang and Kun Yang) discusses concepts and conceptualization. These
two terms are closely related and frequently invoked but tend to be under-​specified when employed
in Cognitive Linguistics. The chapter first specifies cognitive linguistic stances on such critical
issues concerning concepts as their ontological status, structure, origin, and relation to language.
Then six parameters are put forward for characterizing the nature and properties of conceptualiza-
tion. Conceptualization can be investigated from both within and outside in terms of the psycho-
logical and the sociological. The chapter briefly illustrates how Cognitive Linguistics has handled
these two issues.
Chapter 16 (Günter Radden) reviews recent research on iconicity, as well as discussing and illus-
trating the three primary types of iconicity. Iconicity refers to the perceived resemblance between
the form and meaning of a sign. Imagic iconicity, as in cuckoo, represents a direct similarity
between form and meaning. Diagrammatic iconicity, as in I came, I saw, I conquered, involves a
similarity between two relationships, in this case, between a sequence of words and a sequence of
times. Associative iconicity, as in crash, receives its iconicity by relating the word to a paradigm
of similar words.
Chapter 17 (Klaus-​Uwe Panther) argues that motivation is an explanatory concept in linguistic
theorizing. After a brief introduction that contrasts the everyday conception of motivation with its
theoretical use in cognitive linguistics, some historical landmarks of the concept are selectively
presented ranging from antiquity to present-​day linguistics. On the basis of C. S. Peirce’s three-
fold classification of signs into symbols, indexes, and icons, a model is proposed that distinguishes

8
 Introduction

between language-​internal and language-​external factors of motivation. The workings of each type
of motivation are illustrated with mostly English-​language examples.
Chapter 18 (Renata Enghels and Mar Garachana Camarero) is on language change. Linguistic
change is considered as the collective entrenchment of an innovative language trait which was first
produced by individual language users when striving for communicative success and efficiency.
Over the last few decades, different theories have been developed in order to understand how and
why these processes of language change come about. This chapter zooms in on the main differences
and similarities between three major approaches to these phenomena, namely grammaticalization,
lexicalization, and the more recent theory of constructionalization.
Chapter 19 (Lieselotte Brems) presents a critical overview of the different—​and sometimes
conflicting—​definitions of intersubjectivity found in the literature. In general terms intersubject-
ivity concerns the linguistic realization of a speaker’s attention to a hearer. The chapter proposes a
typology of subtypes of intersubjective meanings (attitudinal, responsive, and textual), based on the
kind of hearer-​attention or addressee-​accommodation they involve. It zooms in on the relationship
with subjectivity and (inter)subjectification, and tries to propose a number of formal recognition
criteria for this pragmatic-​semantic notion.
Chapter 20 (Frank Brisard) is about grounding. Grounding is what is needed to single out an
instance of a type or, in other words, to achieve reference in discourse. A so-​called grounding
predication is essential to the formation of a nominal or a finite clause. It invokes the ground (the
speech event, its participants, and the immediate circumstances) ‘subjectively’ and specifies a min-
imal, epistemic relationship with the referent. Grounding is seen as a semantic function which
can be grammatically implemented in various ways, most prototypically by means of deictic and
quantificational expressions. Due to the basic human concerns from which it arises, grounding is
both universal and indispensable for coherent discourse and successful interaction.
Chapter 21 (Salvatore Attardo) is about humor. The origins of the cognitive linguistics of humor
are examined, with a particular emphasis on the connections with and differences from the General
Theory of Verbal Humor and specifically frame and script semantics. In this chapter, various cogni-
tive mechanisms are examined, including frame shifting, blending, trumping, and metaphors. It is
concluded that there are no humor-​specific mechanisms: Humor “recycles” cognitive mechanisms
that appear in serious communication. Promising areas of research are examined, such as embodied
cognition, stylistics and construction grammar, and the connections between humorous metaphors
and humor research.
Chapter 22 (Francesca Strik Lievers, Chu-​Ren Huang, and Jiajuan Xiong) deals with linguistic
synaesthesia. Synaesthesia in language consists in the combination of linguistic expressions refer-
ring to different sensory modalities, as in “bitter voice”. This chapter first addresses the debate on
the definition of synaesthesia, arguing that it is a type of metaphor. Next, it reviews research on
preferences in synaesthetic sensory combinations; for instance, many studies show that, in sev-
eral languages, hearing is very frequently a target of synaesthetic transfers (as in bitter voice) but
rarely a source. Finally, it is suggested that such strong cross-​linguistic preferences as well as minor
language-​specific differences may be accounted for by a combination of perceptual, cultural, and
linguistic factors.

Part III: Interface between Cognitive Linguistics and Other Fields or Disciplines
This part includes 14 chapters, which explore the interface research between Cognitive Linguistics
and other disciplines or fields.
Chapter 23 (Chris Sinha) reviews the history, main theoretical issues, methods, and selected
key research topics in the study of language, culture, and cognition. It emphasizes the interdiscip-
linary nature of the field, summarizing the contributions of anthropology and psychology as well as

9
 Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

linguistics. It traces the development of cultural linguistics from anthropological and cognitive lin-
guistic traditions. The history and present status of the theory of linguistic relativity, as well as current
approaches drawing upon extended embodiment, are discussed. The key research topics of color, space
and time, and self and identity are addressed, and the state of the art is summarized in each of them.
Chapter 24 (Herbert L. Colston) is about figurative language from the perspective of Cognitive
Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics was founded in part on the cognitive commitment—​the promise
that linguistic models, explanations, theories, accounts, etc., of language functioning in people
would adhere to what we know about human cognitive functioning in general. This commitment,
when applied to explanations of figurative language, has had significant impacts. Probably the
most widely known such effects have been on accounts of metaphor and, by extension, figures
that can contain metaphors like idioms and proverbs and metonymy. But other figurative language
treatments (as well as figurativity in other media) have also embraced content from cognitive
psychology or cognitive science (e.g., using prototype accounts to discuss idioms, using perceptual
contrast and distinctiveness to account for verbal irony, hyperbole, and some of their pragmatic
effects, invoking cognitive biases (e.g., for positivity), or schemas, when dealing with verbal irony,
indirect negation, proverbs, etc.). The chapter first reviews briefly these successful adherences to
the cognitive commitment in accounts of figurative language. But it also suggests ways in which
the accounts could do more. Further critique is also presented on needed extensions of the cognitive
commitment into other domains of human functioning which impact figurative language production
and comprehension.
Chapter 25 (Jan Nuyts) deals with how humans anchor newly acquired information in their
long-​term knowledge of the world, by qualifying it along a range of dimensions, including aspect,
time, and types of modality. It shows how these dimensions are organized in a hierarchical system,
it explores the basic cognitive principles underlying this organization, and it discusses how this
system plays a critical role in the process of (inter)subjectification, as a major mechanism of dia-
chronic semantic change.
Chapter 26 (Marco Mazzone) is an account of cognitive pragmatics which is the study of the
psychological processes involved in human communication in context, especially on the side of
comprehension. Paul Grice laid the foundation for this field by describing comprehension as a
form of inference-​based intention recognition. This chapter presents Grice’s framework, describes
how Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory develop it, and defends it against criticisms leveled
at both the notion of communicative intention and inferential pragmatic processing. It also argues
that inference-​based intention recognition may include recognition of conventional patterns as
a component, which would allow for a theoretical convergence between Grice’s and Austin’s
paradigms.
Chapter 27 (Jeroen Vandaele) starts with an overview of important topics, perspectives, and
problems in cognitive poetics, and then takes poetic metaphor theory as a central case. First, it
discusses Conceptual Metaphor Theory in relation to Aristotle and poetic metaphor. Second, it
expounds other cognitive views of metaphor and relates them to poetics: Interaction Theory,
Relevance Theory, Blending Theory, Bidirectionality Theory, and the class inclusion hypothesis.
Third, it discusses aspects of form. Fourth, it proposes an interdisciplinary template for further
analysis. Finally, it connects its discussion of poetic metaphor with the aims of (cognitive) poetics.
Chapter 28 (Ulrike Schröder) outlines the most basic lines of research in the field of cognitive
linguistics and discourse studies. In particular, the focus is on two shifts which discourse studies on
cognitive phenomena have undergone during the past three decades: the first being a shift to con-
textual, sociolinguistic, cultural, and individual variation, the second being a shift to real language
use with growing interest in spoken and multimodal data. Based on examples of each domain, the
chapter gives an overview of how studies have evolved around topics such as metaphor, metonymy,
blending, construction, viewpoint, and discourse models in general.

10
 Introduction

Chapter 29 (Sherman Wilcox and Rocío Martínez) offers an overview of signed language lin-
guistics. A brief description of American Sign Language (ASL) provides the background to lin-
guistic analyses of signed languages. Critical issues include iconicity, metaphor, metonymy, mental
spaces, grammaticization, evidentiality and modality, and pointing. A final section focuses on two
themes concerning the relation between signed languages and gesture. The first describes the pro-
cess by which gestures are incorporated into a signed language. The second examines the claim that
some signs are fusions of linguistic and gestural material.
Chapter 30 (Julius Hassemer and Vito Evola) focuses on functional and formal aspects found
in gesture studies highlighting their relationship with cognitive linguistics. The analysis shows
the need for research on gestural meaning-​making, or “gesture phonology”, as well as gesture
categorization. It concludes by touching upon future directions in the area of human computer
interaction.
Chapter 31 (Kairong Xiao) is an exploration of translation studies from the perspective of cog-
nition. The linguistic approach to translation studies has met criticisms for its prescriptive nature or
its focus on linguistic transfer. Cognitive Linguistics offers a different consideration of translation
with a cognitive paradigm in which translation is seen as a humanized, individualistic, and cogni-
tive activity. It provides Translation Studies with innovative theoretical frameworks, analytic tools,
and research methodologies while contributing to the emergence of Cognitive Translation Studies.
Future developments might be seen in the elaboration of the theoretical frameworks, the interaction
between the Cognitive Linguistic approach and empirical research, and the integration of Cognitive
Linguistics with other branches of cognitive science for the modeling of translational cognition.
Chapter 32 (Dilin Liu and Tzung-​Hung Tsai) explores how cognitive linguistics may inform,
inspire, and enhance language pedagogy. It covers the following issues: (i) historical perspectives on
language pedagogy, including new perspectives offered by cognitive linguistics; (ii) critical issues
and topics related to the application of cognitive linguistics to pedagogy; (iii) current contributions
and research; (iv) recommendations; and (v) future directions in this area of work.
Chapter 33 (Han Luo) investigates the application of Cognitive Linguistics in second language
acquisition. There has been a consensus among scholars that the very foundations of cognitive
linguistics (CL) make it well suited for shedding light on second language acquisition (SLA). The
usage-​based principle lies at the heart of the connection between CL and SLA. In order to explain
the impact of CL on SLA research and language pedagogy, this chapter first discusses the key tenets
of CL and their implications for SLA, and then moves to the usage-​based theory of language acqui-
sition, followed by a review of the CL-​inspired approach to L2 instruction, and finally concludes
with suggestions for future research.
Chapter 34 (Esra’ M. Abdelzaher) outlines the intersection between cognitive linguistic theories
and digital lexicography since the introduction of Longman Language Activator to the creation of
FrameNet and MetaNet. It also discusses polysemy, senses separation, and idiom definitions from
cognitive and lexicographic perspectives. The chapter explores the current research on the use of
cognitive linguistic theories in the addition of new features to dictionaries and highlights the dom-
inant methods applied in the field. Finally, empirical evidence and the combination of compatible
cognitive theories are recommended for future research.
Chapter 35 (Nataliya Panasenko) shows the perspective of the basic notions and methods of cog-
nitive linguistics in the analysis of a specific term system—​medicinal plants’ names, or phytonyms,
in Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages. The author presents different domains and schools
of cognitive linguistics and shows, in numerous examples, how the ideas offered and developed by
scholars can help explain motivational features of herbs’ designation. The results of the onomasio-
logical and cognitive analysis show how information processing channels, such ways of informa-
tion processing as metaphor and metonymy, and stages of human cognitive activity are reflected in
phytonymic lexicon.

11
 Xu Wen and John R. Taylor

Chapter 36 (Sadia Belkhir) offers a piece of research into the interplay between cognitive lin-
guistics and proverbs. Its major aim is to suggest a cross-​cultural cognitive linguistic approach to
the treatment of proverbs to satisfy a lack within Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)—​both its
early version (Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Lakoff & Tuner 1989), and its more recent standard version,
Cultural Cognitive Theory (Kövecses 2005). It first briefly reviews cognitive linguistics and draws
on some theoretical issues in the study of proverbs within CMT. Then, it recommends a cognitive
approach to cross-​cultural metaphoric variation and provides illustrative examples of source-​target
domain mappings within some animal-​related proverbs from Kabyle, Arabic, French, and English
in comparison and contrast.

Part IV: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics

This part is a description of the new directions of Cognitive Linguistics. It is really rather risky
to predict new trends of a discipline, but we have to take the risk nonetheless. In addition to the
well-​known “social turn” and “quantitative turn”, here we list several important new directions
zooming in on Cognitive Linguistics, which include (we give them temporary names) cognitive
neurolinguistics, cognitive evolutionary linguistics, diachronic construction grammar, multimodal
cognitive linguistics, cognitive biolinguistics, radical embodied ecolinguistics, and cognitive lin-
guistic typology.
Chapter 37 (Rutvik H. Desai and Nicholas Riccardi) is about the cognitive neuroscience of lan-
guage. It is well known that the study of the neural basis of language has a long history and a rich
body of recent work that leverages modern neuroscientific methods. This chapter, starting from his-
torical foundations, provides an introductory review of recent progress in understanding the neural
basis of some of the major aspects of the language system. After introducing aphasias, the authors
sketch the main components of semantics, speech perception and production, sentence compre-
hension and production, as well as reading and writing systems of the brain, relying primarily on
evidence from neuroimaging and lesion studies. This work highlights both the striking progress
that has been made in understanding the brain bases of language, and the many outstanding issues.
Chapter 38 (Gábor Győri) discusses how the theory of Cognitive Linguistics relates to the
study of the emergence of language in human evolution. It examines what the cognitive linguistics
approach to the nature of language and to its structure and function has to offer for language evo-
lution studies. On the other hand, it also looks into how evolutionist approaches to the origin of
language contribute to and correlate with the tenets of Cognitive Linguistics. It is concluded that the
theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics is in full agreement with a Darwinian evolutionary
account and cultural evolutionary explanation of the origins of human cognition and language.
Chapter 39 (Dirk Noël and Timothy Colleman) is about the diachronic dimension of construction
grammar. Diachronic construction grammar is a field of cognitive linguistics which takes a con-
struction grammatical theoretical perspective to the study of linguistic change and which descrip-
tively traces the development of constructions and constructicons. This chapter surveys its core
conceptual apparatus and sketches the still young history of the discipline. It critically discusses the
theoretical distinction between ‘constructionalization’ and ‘constructional change’ and introduces
research clusters on changes in productivity and/​or schematicity, diachronic constructional semasi-
ology, the disappearance of constructions, connectivity changes in the constructional network, and
contact-​induced constructional change. The chapter ends with a methodological consideration of
the cognitive relevance of corpus research in diachronic construction grammar.
Chapter 40 (Charles Forceville) is on multimodality. While it is clear that communication can
draw on many semiotic resources, research in the humanities has hitherto strongly focused on its
verbal manifestations. “Multimodality” labels a variety of approaches and theories trying to remedy
this bias by investigating how visuals, music, and sound, for instance, contribute to meaning-​
making. The contours of what is developing into a new discipline begin to be discernible. This

12
 Introduction

chapter provides a brief survey of various perspectives on multimodality, addresses the thorny issue
of what should count as a mode, and makes suggestions for further development of the fledgling
discipline.
Chapter 41 (Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Maria Kambanaros) explores the biological foundations
of language. Biolinguistics at large takes the biological underpinnings of language seriously. This
chapter outlines the basic tenets of the biolinguistic approach framed in the form of five ‘founda-
tional questions’. While often construed with generative investigations of language, biolinguistics
is not, and should not be, another term for generative grammar; the biolinguistic approach to the
study of language will thus be put in a broader perspective by inspecting and dissecting the founda-
tional questions, with particular reference to cognitive linguistics. The novelty laid out here is the
regular reference to ‘macro-​’ and ‘micro-​cognitive’ linguistics. Finally, a specific research agenda
will be singled out: language pathology in a comparative biolinguistics.
Chapter 42 (Sune Vork Steffensen and Stephen J. Cowley) links evolutionary theory,
ecolinguistics, and cognitive science. Building on methodology, the authors trace innovation, not to
mental content, but to how languaging in a human life-​world, or extended ecology, entangles acting
with (limited) understanding. Work focused on discourse about the environment thus meshes with
how the consequences of praxis draw on languaging. Indeed, understandings, sayings, and actions
become central factors in the future of evolution. In conclusion, it is suggested that ecolinguists
should not only strive to raise bio-​ecological awareness but, in Peter Finke’s terms, also aspire to
build a scientific culture that favors life on earth.
Chapter 43 (Yuzhi Shi) is about cognitive linguistic typology. It has been widely accepted that
cognitive linguistics and linguistic typology are closely related to each other, that is, the former
provides an appropriate framework to explain cross-​linguistic regularity and the latter serves to
prove some theoretical tenets or hypotheses of the former. The central point here is how to under-
stand the so-​called cross-​linguistic regularities or language universals. Langacker (2013) considers
them as syntactic categories such as nouns and verbs, whereas Croft (2016) thinks of them as
Greenbergian universal correlations. Through analyzing various types of passive structures across
languages that are most diverse among all grammatical categories, this chapter focuses on the limi-
tation of the possible cross-​linguistic variation in markings and forms for a given grammatical
category, which can be successfully explained by means of the concept “construal”, a central point
in cognitive linguistics. On the other side, evidence from linguistic typology shows that every
element comprising a construction is meaningful, which validates one of the major tenets of cog-
nitive linguistics.

4. Conclusions
This handbook provides an overview of the Cognitive Linguistics enterprise from various
dimensions. Although Cognitive Linguistics only has a short history of 40 years, its rapid develop-
ment and great achievements are well known to all linguists.
As we know, the study of Cognitive Linguistics is not confined to understanding language alone,
but explaining real linguistic phenomena through the exploration of cognitive processes hidden in
the brain and mind. More importantly, through exploring the mental processes we can understand
and elucidate a large number of social, psychological, and cultural phenomena. In other words, the
description of cognitive processes in Cognitive Linguistics is not only a way to explain linguistic
phenomena, but also a methodology to observe the realities of society and culture, and understand
humankind’s social psyche. Therefore, we believe that Cognitive Linguistics is not only a paradigm
of linguistics, but also a cognitive social science, which can have many implications for various
fields or disciplines in the age of big data. And we hope that the present handbook can sufficiently
make this point and do so in many ways that will be informative and valuable to students and
researchers of Cognitive Linguistics and other disciplines.

13
 Notes

Notes
1 Notations like [[CUP]/​[cup]] may suggest a clear delimitation and independence of the semantic and
phonological poles. However, this is just a convenient fiction (see Langacker 2016).
2 The control cycle underpins our conception of reality and is thus also appealed to in the CG description of
modals (see e.g., Langacker 2008a and Langacker 2009).
3 CG used to analyze all relationships as involving a trajector and a landmark but trajector and landmark are
now defined in terms of focal prominence (see also section 6). Thus, we may have relationships with only a
trajector. This is the case of arrive, where the location attained is not considered a focal element and hence
a landmark (see Langacker 2008a: 71–​72 and 113).
4 Scanning is used to distinguish between for example the verb enter and the dynamic preposition into. The
two are held to have the same content but enter, like any verb, is regarded as a relationship scanned sequen-
tially whereas into is said to profile a relationship scanned summarily (see Broccias and Hollmann 2007,
Langacker 2008b). Summary scanning is also postulated to be operative in to-​infinitives (e.g., to enter),
present participles (e.g., entering), and past participles (e.g., entered in have entered).
1 In other linguistic frameworks dealing with the interaction between meaning and form, semantic roles also
play a crucial role in what is known as Linking Theory (see, e.g., Butt et al. 1997; Levin & Rappaport-​
Hovav 2005; Osswald & Van Valin 2014; Wechsler 2015).
2 Parts of this section are based on Boas & Dux (2017), Boas et al. (2019), and Boas (2020a).
3 Following FrameNet practice, frame labels are in Courier New font and FE labels are in small capital font.
4 FN makes a distinction between so-​called core FEs that are crucial for the understanding of the frame itself
and non-​core FEs that do not define the frame but provide additional information such as Time, Place,
and Manner. Other non-​core FEs of the VERIFICATION frame include Degree, Explanation, Instrument,
Means, and Purpose.
5 https://​framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/​fnReports/​data/​frameIndex.xml?frame=Verification&banner=
6 https://​framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/​fnReports/​data/​lu/​lu11041.xml?mode=lexentry. Figure 3.4 is in grey-
scale. The original lexical entry in FrameNet is in color.
7 FN also documents null instantiated FEs, i.e. FEs that are not overtly realized in a sentence but that are
conceptually understood as a part of the frame evoked by the relevant LU. There are three types of null
instantiation recognized by FN: DNI (definite null instantiation), INI (indefinite null instantiation), and
CNI (constructional null instantiation). For details, see Fillmore (1986), Ruppenhofer & Michaelis (2014),
Ruppenhofer et al. (2016), and Boas (2017b).
8 FrameNet data are used for a variety of computational applications, including automatic role labeling
(Gildea & Jurafsky 2002; Das et al. 2010), semantic parsing (Baker et al. 2007), and sentiment analysis
(Ruppenhofer & Rehbein 2012).
9 See Boas (2020b) on the question of whether semantic frames may be universal (or not).
10 Parts of this section are based on Boas & Ziem (2018a), Boas et al. (2019), and Boas (2020a).
11 See Wulff (2013) and Bybee (2013) for a discussion of idiomaticity in CxG.
12 Note that this view is in contrast to the generative-​transformational approach, which proposes that children
growing up are not exposed to rich enough data to acquire every feature of their language (“poverty of the
stimulus”) (Chomsky 1988).
13 For other definitions of constructions see Croft (2001: 17–​21) and Fried & Östman (2004: 18–​23).
14 Since the early 2000s, more and more researchers have adopted CxG as a linguistic framework. Besides
an ever-​growing number of publications on CxG, a number of new venues have emerged for presenting
constructional research, including the biannual International Conference on Construction Grammar (which
started in Berkeley in 2001), the journal Constructions and Frames (www.benjamins.com/​catalog/​cf), the
book series Constructional Approaches to Language (www.benjamins.com/​catalog/​cal), as well as specific
theme sessions on CxG at conferences such as the International Conference on Cognitive Linguistics, the
Conference of the German Society of Cognitive Linguistics (DGKL), and the Conference of the French
Association for Cognitive Linguistics (AFLiCO).
15 When entries of verbs and ASCs fuse with each other, they have to adhere to the Semantic Coherence
Principle. Only roles which are semantically compatible can be fused. Two roles r1 and r2 are semantic-
ally compatible if either r1 can be construed as an instance of r2, or r1 can be construed as an instance of r1.
For example, the kicker participant of the kick frame may be fused with the agent role of the ditransitive
construction because the kicker role can be construed as an instance of the agent role. Whether a role can
be construed as an instance of another role is determined by general categorization principles, and the
Correspondence Principle. (Each participant role that is lexically profiled and expressed must be fused
with a profiled argument role of the construction. If a verb has three profiled participant roles, then one of
them may be fused with a construction’s nonprofiled argument role.) (Goldberg 1995: 50).

14
 Notes

16 Semantic roles represented in bold are profiled arguments, i.e. entities in a verb’s semantics that are “obliga-
torily accessed and function as focal points within the scene, achieving a special degree of prominence
(Langacker 1987)” (Goldberg 1995: 44).
17 Coercion is an important concept determining which verbs can occur in certain constructions under specific
conditions. See Michaelis 2004; Boas 2011a; and Van Trijp 2015.
18 See Boas (2008b), who argues that in Goldberg’s (1995) approach there still is a de facto separation of the
lexicon and syntax, because lexical entries as separate entities fuse with ASCs, which are a different type
of data structure.
19 Note that there is some disagreement on whether morphemes are the smallest constructional units. Whereas
Goldberg (2006: 5) assigns morphemes the status of constructions, Booij (2010: 15) argues that morphemes
should not be assigned constructional status. See Booij (2017) for details.
20 Recall that constructional research started out by focusing on semi-​productive idiomatic constructions
(while keeping in mind more “regular” constructions, too), i.e. those types of structures that in generative-​
transformational approaches such as that of Chomsky (1981) were thought of belonging to the co-​called
“periphery” instead of the so-​called “core grammar”. In CxG, there is no such systematic differentiation
between a “core” and the “periphery”, because it is not clear on what empirical grounds such a distinction
could be made. See Boas & Ziem (2018b: 14–​15) for more details.
21 Note that this section cites only a limited number of relevant publications in the decade following
Goldberg (1995). Its purpose is to provide an overview of how CxG evolved out of a relatively small
group of researchers at or with links to UC Berkeley during the second phase of constructional research.
It is difficult to provide a substantial overview of all the many different phenomena and languages
investigated by constructional researchers during what I call the third phase of constructional research
in the years since 2005. For an overview of the relevant literature see the contributions in Hoffmann &
Trousdale (2013).
22 For an alternative account to Boas (2013a) see Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004) as well as Boas (2005a).
23 This approach also integrates insights from historical linguistics about lexical change. With respect to how
new words and patterns occur in language over time and how repeated analogical extensions influence the
emergence of new constructions, Hilpert (2013: 471) notes the following: “Repeated analogical extensions
may over time lead to the emergence of a general schema (…) which invites further additions to the range
of expressions occurring in this now partly schematic idiom.”
24 This research in Cognitive Grammar, in turn, has been influenced by earlier research on prototype categor-
ization (Rosch & Mervis 1975).
25 See Boas (2002a) for an alternative proposal suggesting that constructional polysemy is unnecessary for
analyzing ASCs, because it appears as if constructional polysemy is an epiphenomenon that replicates lex-
ical polysemy at a more abstract and schematic level.
26 For an earlier proposal, see Fillmore & Kay (1993), who propose an abstract ABC-​construction with seven
sub-​constructions (Recipient, Benefactive-​Ditransitive, Caused Motion, Resultative, Immobility, Caused
Location, and Fill/​Empty), which all inherit from the abstract ABC-​construction, thereby forming a con-
structional network. Croft (2003) notes that there are also autonomous verb-​specific constructions of
ditransitives, which he claims are independently represented in the mind.
27 See also Boas (2010c) and Colleman & De Clerck (2011) for details on how specific semantic classes of
verbs may occur in the ditransitive.
28 See also Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004) and Luzondo (2014) for related proposals.
29 For a similar but more coarse-​grained approach, see Traugott (2008), who proposes so-​called micro-​
constructions, meso-​constructions, and macro-​constructions to account for the different levels of abstrac-
tion and specificity of constructions. For an overview of other proposals of how resultative constructions
are organized in terms of constructional families, see Peña (2017).
30 For a discussion of the architecture of different types of networks, see Boas (2013b).
31 A related issue is the question of how different constructions (presumably from different sub-​networks of
the larger network of a language) interact with each other in order to license specific utterances. This is
an underexplored area of research. Without going into any details, Goldberg (2019: 49) proposes that “the
forms and the functions of constructions that are combined must be compatible. When they are not, the
resulting utterances are judged to be unacceptable to varying degrees, depending on the degree of incom-
patibility.” Clearly, this issue needs to be addressed in much greater detail by future research.
32 Parts of this section are based on Boas & Ziem (2018b).
33 Note that the discussion of constructional productivity here focuses primarily on ASCs. Other types of
constructions such as partially filled idioms (e.g., to drive someone {crazy/​bonkers/​up the wall/​dizzy} (see
Boas 2003a; Bybee 2013)), the WXDY construction (Kay & Fillmore 1999), or passive constructions
(Ackerman & Webelhuth 1998; Lasch 2016) also exhibit different degrees of productivity.

15
 Notes

34 Parts of this section are based on Boas (2013b), Boas (2017), and Boas & Ziem (2018b).
35 For an overview of how constructionist insights have been applied in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics,
see Bencini (2013) and Pulvermüller et al. (2013).
36 CxG has also been applied to the analysis of spoken language, see Auer (2006), Deppermann et al. (2006),
Günthner/​Imo (2006), Bücker et al. (2015), and Imo (2013).
37 Two decades earlier, Fillmore (1988: 37) proposed the idea for a repertory of constructions as follows: “The
grammar of a language can be seen as a repertory of constructions, plus a set of principles which govern
the nesting and superimposition of constructions into or upon one another.” See Jurafsky (1992: 18), who
coins the term “constructicon” in reference to the term “lexicon”. See Goldberg (2019: 36) on how the
constructicon can be conceptualized in terms of a network of constructions.
38 Chomsky (1961: 130) proposes that “it is absurd to attempt to construct a grammar that describes observed
linguistic behavior directly”.
39 The usage-​based approach attempts to circumvent the rule/​list fallacy, which assumes that rules and lists
are mutually exclusive. In this view, the grammar may include both rules and instantiating expressions (for
more details, see Langacker 2000: 2–​3).
40 On the difference between token and type frequency see Bybee (2013: 59–​63). For details on frequency
effects, see Diessel (2019).
41 Note that the notion of what exactly “sufficient frequency” means is open to interpretation. For example,
more recently Goldberg (2019: 64) points out the following: “The semantic, formal, sound, and social
dimensions associated with each construction are formed by generalizations across the partially abstracted
exemplars that have been witnessed.” Clearly, the notion of “sufficient frequency” (and possible rankings
of factors from different dimensions) needs to be worked out by further research.
42 Research in Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG) (Steels 2013) and Embodied Construction Grammar
(ECG) (Bergen & Chang 2013) has led to computational implementations of constructional insights based
on usage-​based data. The FCG formalism allows researchers to take constructional insights and formulate
them in a precise way that allows for the testing of hypotheses in the context of parsing, production, and
learning. ECG captures the cognitive and neural mechanisms that underlie human linguistic behavior com-
putationally. For the differences between FCG and SBCG, see Van Trijp (2013).
43 In psycholinguistics, experimental data also plays an important role. Sampson (2003) argues that the pre-
occupation with speakers’ hazy intuitions about language structures is often sharply at odds with the nature
of their actual usage and that such an approach towards developing theories of language is rather unscien-
tific (for a similar view, see Hanks 2013).
44 For details, see https://​framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/​fndrupal/​fulltextIndex.
1 I am indebted to Thomas Brunner, Mark Turner, and Peter Uhrig for their help in finding the best way to
formulate this search query.
1 Despite these relationships, it remains true that neither prime can be paraphrased in terms of the other. For
example, good ≠ ‘not bad’, bad ≠ ‘not good’. Although ‘Y happened after X’ may be logically equivalent
to ‘X happened before Y’, there is an irreducible difference in perspective between the two.
2 This is available at [intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/​schools-​departments/​natural-​semantic-​metalanguage/​
downloads] and at [nsm-approach.net]. Other useful resources there include a list of 150 canonical
sentences for identifying NSM semantic primes in different languages, and tables of semantic primes in
20+ languages.
3 Phrases and lines of semantic text are often called ‘components’, but there is little similarity between the
NSM approach and classical structuralist Componential Analysis.
4 Arguably, there are at least two different understandings of ‘God’ in the Judeo-​Christian tradition, e.g.,
the God of the Hebrew Bible and God as “re-​understood” in the New Testament. Explication [E]‌ may be
viewed as an attempt to capture a common lexical meaning that is compatible with both.
5 Goddard and Wierzbicka (2021) argue that ‘we’ plays a critical role as a semantic molecule in the lexical
semantics of “collective” concepts such as ‘nation’, ‘community’, and ‘team’.
6 In the final line, ‘know’ is marked as a semantic molecule because this is not the semantic prime know, but
a complex polysemic meaning ‘know (someone)’; cf. Farese (2018b).
1 www.merriam-​webster.com/​words-​at-​play/​folk-​etymology/​cockroach
1 Unless explicitly indicated differently, all the stimuli are originally in Hebrew.
2 For strong attenuation of highly negative concepts by means of similes, see Veale (2013).
3 All these factors have been controlled here by pretests.
4 See Giora & Becker (2019).
5 Given that we are focusing here on interpretations rather than meanings, such items will not be discussed
here, but see Givoni & Giora (2018).
6 This is the affirmative version in Hebrew.

16
 Notes

7 Note that in Hebrew, affirmative utterances use “yes” explicitly.

1 Image schemas are conventionally presented in small capitals in the cognitive linguistics literature.
1 The research on which this chapter is based has been financed by FEDER/​Spanish Ministry of Science,
Innovation and Universities, State Research Agency, project no. FFI2017-​82730-​P. I am thankful to
Dr. Alba Luzondo Oyón for her comments on a preliminary draft of this chapter. Any remaining weakness
is my sole responsibility. Correspondence to francisco.ruizdemendoza@unirioja.es.
1 The earliest and often-​cited characterization of the ideophone is the one given by Doke (1935: 118), cited
in Akita and Dingemanse (2019: 2). In his study of Bantu languages, Doke defines ideophone as a “vivid
representation of an idea in sound”.
2 English Language & Usage, s.v. Etymology of “snob”. https://​english.stackexchange.com/​questions/​
22147/​etymology-​of-​snob
3 In Floyd broke the glass with the hammer, the instrument role of hammer is midway in the flow of energy
between the agent and the patient but, due to its second-​rate importance to the object affected, is not
attributed the status of an argument.
4 Hammerström (2015) lists the following frequencies of basic word order in 5,230 languages: SOV: 43.3%;
SVO: 40.2%; VSO: 9.5%; VOS: 3.3%; OVS: 0.7%; OSV: 0.3%; NODOM 2.3%; 93% of the languages
thus have a word order in which the subject precedes the object.
5 The conditions governing the iconic order of spatial and temporal adjuncts in Chinese seem to be: Free
adjuncts denoting a place as in (10a) or a source are placed before the verb and obligatory adjuncts denoting
a goal as in (10b) or functioning as a predicate of a state are placed after the verb.
6 As pointed out to me by my colleague Catherine Schwerin, the order trick or treat may be historically
motivated. Halloween is traditionally seen as the time when spirits rise to play mischief on humans or even
harm them. They are to be propitiated to prevent this. Thus the spirit may play havoc (play a “trick”) unless
it is appeased (given a “treat”). Fear of harm is the default and the “treat” is the action to prevent this, there-
fore motivating the order of the modern-​day ghostlings’ threat: “trick or treat”.
7 Otto Behaghel (1932: 4) already noted the topmost importance of proximity in language structure: “the
primary law is that what belongs close together mentally is placed close together” (daß das geistig eng
Zusammengehörige auch eng zusammengestellt wird).
8 www.usertesting.com/​blog/​gestalt-​principles#proximity.
9 See Givón (1991: 90–​91) for more examples and linguistic markers distinguishing the kinds of coherence,
especially stress and intonational contours.
10 A nice example of the impact of social distance on language has been provided by Klaus-​Uwe Panther.
Nicknames signal close social distance and are invariably shorter than their given names, as in Dick versus
Richard or Bess versus Elizabeth.
11 Shakespeare used the phrase neither rhyme nor reason in his plays The Comedy of Errors, As You Like It,
and The Merry Wives of Windsor.
12 Benczes (2019) chose the modified phrase Rhyme over Reason as the title of her book. She notes that,
from a linguistic perspective, rhyme refers to the poetic and reason to the referential function of language
(Benczes 2019: 1).
1 A search for the entry grammaticalization in the database of the MLA International Bibliography provides
no less than 2,770 results with an increase of 80 published articles in the 1980s, and over 1,200 records in
the current decade. The term lexicalization returns 440 records and follows a comparable chronological
path. The entry constructionalization provides only 21 references, but all have been published between
2012 and 2019. These data show that the discussions of grammaticalization and lexicalization go hand
in hand, and are still of topical interest. The theory of constructionalization has entered the scene more
recently, as is shown in this chapter.
2 The most widespread term grammaticalization interchanges with grammaticization (Himmelmann 2004)
and grammatization (Matisoff 1991).
3 However, it is important to point out that, even if most of the work on grammaticalization has been
developed within the cognitive-​functional approach, recently, grammaticalization has aroused the interest
of formal linguistics as well (cf. van Gelderen 2011 for a general overview).
4 Unfortunately, due to space limits, it will not be possible to discuss many of the highly interesting alter-
native viewpoints and concrete case studies. Also note that relatively more space is dedicated to the
notion of grammaticalization than to lexicalization and constructionalization. This apparent imbalance
is because these two notions are also best defined against the background of grammaticalization (see also
note 1).
5 A distinction should be made between grammaticalization, which refers to specific phenomena of language
change, and grammaticalization theory, which aims to describe and explain different related phenomena
(cf. Heine 2002; cf. infra section 2.3).

17
 Notes

6 However, two important differences between the two approaches can be observed. First, although cross-​
linguistic patterns of grammaticalization have recurrently been observed, grammaticalization theory is not
mainly concerned with comparing languages. Second, linguistic meaning constitutes an important part of
most grammaticalization studies, whereas the historical comparative method is mainly concerned with
formal aspects of language change.
7 This is clearly illustrated by the definition proposed by Haspelmath (2004: 26) according to which gram-
maticalization is “a diachronic change by which parts of a constructional schema come to have stronger
internal dependencies”. Note that this definition may have contributed to the constructional view on lan-
guage change (cf. infra section 4).
8 In those early theories, a distinction has been made between primary and secondary grammaticalization,
the former referring to changes from lexical to grammatical, and the latter from grammatical to more gram-
matical (e.g., Givón 1991: 305; see also Traugott 2002). More recently, the necessity of adding secondary
grammaticalization as a separate notion has been put into question (e.g., Breban 2014; see also Detges &
Waltereit 2002; and Waltereit 2011).
9 However, note that the term analogy is far from uncontroversial, and has received different definitions. In
Meillet’s theory, for instance, analogy refers to the phenomenon which explains morphological regulariza-
tion, and has no relation whatsoever with the semantic interpretation of the term.
10 These ambiguous contexts have been termed bridging contexts or switch contexts by Heine (2002: 590): A
> A, B > B.
11 Parallel to the term analogy, the notion of reanalysis has been the subject of discussion. In general, it has
been associated with a change in parsing of an expression. According to Hopper and Traugott (1993), all
cases of grammaticalization involve reanalysis, but not all cases of reanalysis involve grammaticalization.
Haspelmath (1998), on the contrary, believes that grammaticalization and reanalysis are two different
phenomena, and that only some instances of grammaticalization are reanalysis and vice versa. Heine
(2003: 593) proposes not to use the term analogy in discussions on grammaticalization because of possible
misunderstandings.
12 Similar cases have been accounted for in terms of degrammaticalization (Heine 2003) but are now gener-
ally seen as instances of a process of language change in their own right.
13 The emphasis is ours. Of course, this insight has significantly contributed to the development of the
constructionalization theory, as explained in section 4 below.
14 On the other hand, attention has also been paid to the grammaticalization that takes place in the written text
(Narrog & Ohori 2011).
15 Meillet stated that “le seul procédé qui reste [la grammaticalization] est l’atribution progressive d’un rôle
grammatical à des mots autonomes ou à des manières de grouper les mots” (Meillet 1912: 132) [‘the only
remaining process [grammaticalization] is the progressive assignment of a grammatical role to autonomous
words or ways of grouping words’]. And Hopper and Traugott in the presentation of their book assessed
that “grammaticalization [is] the process whereby lexical items or constructions come in certain linguistic
context to serve grammatical functions” (Hopper & Traugott 1993).
1 All examples that do not cite a specific source were extracted from Collins Wordbank Online.
1 This label is not an established reference in Cognitive Grammar, but one that I made up purely for rhet-
orical purposes. It is, however, partly prompted by Langacker’s explicit recognition of a revision of earlier
accounts of grounding in recent publications.
2 In Cognitive Grammar, a thing is the conception of any region in some domain of instantiation, proto-
typically though not exclusively that of space (e.g., apple, but also democracy and running). A process is
the conception of a temporal relation, i.e., a set of interconnections among conceived entities distributed
through a continuous span of conceived time. Things and processes represent the semantic pole of nouns
and verbs, respectively.
3 The table should be read as follows: English nominal grounding predications include definite the and this/​
that (and their plurals), indefinite a/​ø, and the quantifiers some, sm (unstressed some), most, all, no, each,
every, and any. Clausal grounding is done in English by the present and the past tense and by the morpho-
logically defective modals may, will, can, shall, and must and their past-​tense forms.
4 Not impossible, but in need of a special type of context to make sense (e.g., to start a narrative). The passé
simple, the original form dedicated to such uses, has become obsolete in modern French.
5 More generally, it is the quantificational expressions in Table 20.1 that appear to be less stable in languages,
as they are often the newer elements in the language (as grammatical constructions) and the processes of
grammaticalization affecting them are less likely to have reached some form of completion.
6 Relative quantifiers also count as expressing strong epistemic control, on a par with expressions of definite-
ness, because they either equate a referent with the maximal extension of its type (universality) or indicate
a proportional relation to it. Both strategies lead to interpretations of (relative) uniqueness, which is why
they are true grounding predications.

18
 Notes

7 The third option, a lady’s camera, is meant here as referring to the camera of an unspecified lady, not to
a type of camera (in which case the grounding would simply be done by the indefinite article and lady’s
would have an adjectival function).
8 The benchmark with modal grounding predications can be described as the acceptance of the grounded
process in known/​conceived reality. This follows from the fact that, with processes, the issue is existence
rather than identification (cf. section 2). When used epistemically, the different modals specify the different
degrees of confidence to which this can be done.
9 At least, according to Langacker (2011), if the clause contains a modal; otherwise, i.e., for clauses grounded
by ‘tense’ alone, the temporal meaning of (actual or virtual) coincidence with the time of speaking is said to
suffice. Whereas some specifics of the analyses proposed by Brisard (cf. below) and Langacker may differ,
they agree in positing a temporal meaning for prototypical uses and a modal one at the most schematic level
of analysis.
10 This is why it is specifically a progressive, and not purely an imperfective. The perfectivity of the designated
process is presupposed by the use of a progressive, which imperfectivizes that process as in Figure 20.2.
This is evidenced by the dynamic re-​interpretation of imperfective states when co-​occurring with the pro-
gressive in cases of aspectual coercion, as in I’m loving it.
11 In cases such as these and conceptually related ones, Cognitive Grammar assumes that a ‘virtual’ (rather
than an ‘actual’) instance of the process is aligned with the time of speaking, verifying its temporal defin-
ition of the English present tense as specifying “that an instance of the profiled process occurs and precisely
coincides with the time of speaking” (Langacker 2011: 56).
12 The first statement, in the simple present, boils down to a confident claim about the engine being repaired
which needs no empirical confirmation. The second is just an observation, and “you would certainly have
to start the engine first” (Goldsmith & Woisetschlaeger 1982: 81).
13 In De Wit et al. (2020), these meanings are related to a general notion of ‘extravagance’ that can be used
to describe what situations reported by a progressive have in common. Extravagance has been linked to
diachronic processes of grammaticalization: Innovative speakers want to be noticed by using a new con-
struction or an existing one in a striking new way, and get copied. This happens especially when those
speakers are more than usually involved in what they are describing, for instance (or rather, typically) when
the situation ‘stands out’ in one way or another.
14 Another well-​known example from the literature is that of simple-​present vs. progressive futurates (e.g.,
I leave/​am leaving tomorrow), whose descriptions lend themselves easily to a characterization in terms of
(non-​)contingency.
15 Progressives can also occur with past-​ and future-​tense marking: In those cases, the relevant epistemic
spheres are (non-​immediate) reality and irreality, but the property of contingency for the events described
is still taken to apply. It is likely, though, that the modal uses of progressives primarily start out in the
present-​tense paradigm, because it is in the present that the simultaneous observation and description of
ongoing perfective processes leads to a number of paradoxes/​problems that warrant special attention to
their epistemic status (cf. De Wit 2017).
1 Other surveys of cognitive linguistics work on humor include Brone et al. (2006); Veale et al. (2015); Brone
(2017); and Dynel (2018).
2 A serious discussion of the connections between script/​frame semantics and cognitive linguistics would
need to consider, besides the complex history of meaning representation in Artificial Intelligence, the influ-
ence of the psychological work on prototype theory (Rosch & Mervis 1975), the influence of case grammar,
and the influence of Gestalt theory on both approaches, at a minimum. On the relationship between early
AI work and script/​frame semantics, see now Attardo (2020).
3 The GTVH was presented in Attardo and Raskin (1991). It is an extension of the SSTH to include five other
Knowledge Resources, which are various bits of information pertaining to jokes. For example, some jokes
have a Target (i.e., an entity which is the butt of the joke, the person being made fun of). The GTVH has
undergone a few revisions, primarily Attardo (2001). This is not the place for a complete exposition of the
GTVH, for which see Attardo (2017) and Attardo (2020).
4 It is not. Her account is under-​researched (ignoring other cognitive linguists working on humor), riddled
with errors and misrepresentations, and ultimately she is expressing in a blending terminology analyses that
could have been done outside blending theory.
5 Aggression is a defining feature in Veale et al.’s (2006) definition, but not in Veale (2003: 15); “in some
cases trumping can actually support rather than undermine the goals of the speaker”.
6 “We have outlined the linguistic basis for scalar humor (the X IS SO Y THAT Z construction) and the ways
scalar humor plays on the pragmatic inference encoded in this construction. But our second fundamental
question still remains—​what is it about these different ways of toying with the entailed inference that is
funny? (…) To answer this, we must look to humor research for theories of what makes anything funny”
(Bergen & Binsted 2004: 10).

19
 Notes

1 Francesca Strik Lievers drafted sections 2, 3, 3.1, 3.3, and 4, Chu-​Ren Huang drafted sections 1 and 5, and
Jiajuan Xiong drafted section 3.2. All the three authors contributed to the discussion and revision of the
final version.
1 Cited in Spencer-​Oatey (2012: 1).
2 While Ferdinand de Saussure is usually credited with founding modern linguistics, Boas, with his focus on
“lesser known” languages, might be regarded as having an equally valid claim. Usually, however, he is seen
as “the father of American anthropology”. The overview in this section of language and culture in anthro-
pology focuses on the Boasian tradition, which continues to be influential, especially in the Americas.
Sadly, despite the pioneering work of Malinowski, the language-​culture relationship has received little
attention in later British social anthropology (Henson 1974), other than through a recent orientation in
social constructionist theories to discourses and the discursive construction of subject positionings. Both
this approach, and the Continental European tradition of structuralism and post-​structuralism, lie outside
the scope of this chapter.
3 Boas was apparently the first scholar to use in English the term ‘cultures’ in the plural; although the plural
had previously been used by German cultural psychologists such as Steinthal and Wundt who influenced
Boas (Leavitt, p.c.).
4 This author (Sinha 2017b: 168–​170) distinguishes a Boasian “positive relativism” from a “negative rela-
tivism” that can be identified with solipsism and scepticism.
5 Although Piagetian and Vygotskian theories have often been cast as conflicting with each other, more
recent evaluations have stressed that they can be seen as complementary (Bronckart 2012).
6 It is worth noting that non-​human animal cognition is nowadays known to be more similar to that of
humans than was thought by the originators of the theory of semiotic mediation. This issue is beyond
the scope of this chapter, but in this author’s view it remains plausible to attribute many of the human/​
non-​human cognitive differences that do exist to the use by all human communities of language and other
communicative and cognitive signs.
7 See Sloetjes and Wittenburg (2008). ELAN software available for download from https://​archive.mpi.nl/​
tla/​elan
8 www.qsrinternational.com/​nvivo-​qualitative-​data-​analysis-​software/​home
9 https://​atlasti.com/​product/​
10 Although it has sometimes been claimed that ‘the many Eskimo names for snow’ is an invented fiction, the
example, with detailed linguistic specification, can in fact be found in Boas (1911: 25–​26).
11 At least two languages, Russian and Polish, have one more BCT than English (Davies & Corbett 1994;
Wierzbicka 1990).
12 This work set the scene for the development by Rosch of prototype theory (see Chapter 10).
1 Interestingly, a comparison with hyperbolic utterances from a group of children (mean age, 7.39 years,
range 2.5 to 10 years) revealed almost no differences across these variables (Colston 2007).
2 Obtained December 26, 2019, from internet source: www.distancefromto.net.
3 People typically use hyperbole to point out that magnitudes differ from preferences/​desires/​expectations in
emotionally negative directions. The example story here concerning snow at a ski resort might reflect the
rarer case of hyperbole being used to celebrate magnitudes turning out unexpectedly.
1 See Nuyts (2005a, 2007) on the relationships between these two strands.
2 This very wide notion of deixis is not necessarily generally accepted. For instance, it also covers epistemic
modality (as a central component of grounding, see below), but it is far from obvious to call that category
deictic.
3 Again, this use of the notion ‘epistemic’ is not uncontroversial. It is, for instance, unclear why situation
in time is epistemic in the same way as epistemic modality in the narrow sense, but quantitative and
frequency aspect, for instance, are not. (One might consider the notion to be equivalent to ‘epistemo-
logical’, but that term would typically be used in an even wider sense, to cover everything to do with
knowledge.)
4 The matter has also received considerable attention in formal semantics and, to a lesser extent, in gen-
erative linguistics (e.g., Cinque 1999; Mani et al. 2005; Portner 2009). Since the present approach has
strong ties with the functional linguistic tradition, formalist approaches will not be considered in the
following.
5 Traugott’s notion of (inter)subjectification would seem to have a direct counterpart in the concept of
subjectification as defined by Langacker (1990) in the context of Cognitive Grammar. In spite of ini-
tial assumptions to the contrary (cf., e.g., Langacker 1990: 16), it has become clear that Traugott’s and
Langacker’s notions address different issues (see, e.g., Langacker 1999: 393–​394; Traugott & Dasher
2002: 97–​99; Traugott 2003; López-​Couso 2010: 145; Nuyts 2012). Langacker’s notion will not be of fur-
ther concern in this chapter, as it is not related to the issue of qualifying states of affairs.

20
 Notes

6 The example illustrates that the term ‘state of affairs’ is somewhat unfortunate in that it implies a stative
concept of what is conceptualized, while it is meant to also cover dynamic events. Alternative terms face
the same problem, though: ‘event’, for instance, implies dynamicity, hence would seem to exclude stative
states of affairs.
7 There is considerable dispute over matters such as the precise list of qualificational dimensions and the sub-
categories in them, their definition, and the delimitation between categories. The following list is a fairly
neutral and selective overview, although it is biased by my own perspective on some issues, in particular in
the range of the modal and evidential categories (see, e.g., Nuyts 2005b, 2017).
8 In (2a) only the grammatical form (am Xing) is at stake, not the verb itself.
9 The traditional definition of this category also, or even primarily, refers to the notions of obligation and per-
mission. However, there are good arguments to consider the latter to be speech act categories (functionally
equivalent to the imperative), not qualificational ones. See Nuyts et al. (2010) for analysis.
10 In spite of traditional views, evidentiality may not be a coherent notion, though, since the subcategories
(experienced, hearsay, inferential) have quite distinct properties. See Nuyts (2017) for discussion.
11 There are a number of factors which complicate the picture at the linguistic surface, though, including the
distinction between performative uses (rendering the speaker’s qualification) vs. descriptive or reported
uses (quoting others’ qualification of the state of affairs; these behave differently in terms of their scopal
properties). See Nuyts (2001).
12 The differences between proposals are partly due to the often quite different theoretical perspectives in
these alternative frameworks. But to a considerable extent they also reflect that many aspects of the hier-
archy and its linguistic effects are still insufficiently understood.
13 The hierarchy in (11) is also incomplete in that it only features the selection of qualificational dimensions
introduced earlier in this section. Moreover, it makes abstraction from issues pertaining to the hierarchy in
a more circumstantial way. For instance, among the evidential subcategories, it only features inferential,
because the two other types (experience and hearsay) are not directly part of the hierarchy but, arguably,
relate to it in a higher ‘sphere’ (see Nuyts 2017). Also note the very different position of the three traditional
modal subcategories, underscoring that they are semantically very different notions: dynamic modality is
much lower in the hierarchy than the two others, and is arguably related to or even part of quantitative aspect.
14 This statement should not be interpreted in a simplistic way, of course: this does not involve the
assumption that something like the hierarchy in (11) is represented or stored in conceptualization in a
literal way. It only involves the assumption that something corresponding to what is rendered by the
hierarchy is present in human conceptualization, even if we have no idea at present what form this actu-
ally takes.
15 This formulation simplifies matters: what specifying a value involves and implies for anchoring the state
of affairs may be quite different for the different qualificational dimensions. For the set of ‘assessing’ cat-
egories in the system in particular (see (11) above), the story is quite complicated. See Nuyts (2001, 2009)
for elaboration.
16 In part it is also determined by the grammar of the language, though. Expressing qualificational categories
in a linguistic utterance is usually optional (unlike expressing the state of affairs, which is in principle
always necessary). Yet many languages make the presence of certain categories of qualificational markers
(typically, if not always, grammatical/​morphological ones) more or less compulsory in all clauses—​even if
they differ in terms of which category: for instance, in the Germanic and Romance languages this involves
tense marking (as a coding of time, at least in principle); in the Slavic languages this rather involves aspect
marking; in some Asian and Amerindian languages this concerns evidentiality marking. (Because of the
near obligatoriness of such markers, it is no surprise that they may tend to express more qualificational
meanings than what can be considered their default. Tense in the Germanic and Romance languages, for
instance, can express many more dimensions than just time.)
17 It was originally assumed that this involves a linear evolution through these three meanings, but empirical
research has shown that at least in some cases the evolution is rather, in a first phase, from dynamic to
deontic, and in a later phase, from dynamic to epistemic (i.e., without a development from deontic to epi-
stemic). See Byloo & Nuyts (2014).
18 This does not mean developments are going through all steps in the hierarchy (which probably never
happens), but only that meanings of a form show a general change from somewhere lower to somewhere
higher in the hierarchy.
1 Besides the already mentioned references, see, e.g., also Richardson 2006; Caracciolo 2013; Burke &
Troscianko 2013; Harrison & Stockwell 2014; Cave 2014; Cave & Wilson 2018.
2 I will take CMT to refer to the research line of Lakoff and associates, not to the research initiated by
Fauconnier and Turner (i.e., Blending Theory), although there are obvious institutional, personal, and intel-
lectual connections between the two (see below).

21
 Notes

3 It will not concern us here that Aristotle’s notion of metaphor includes more phenomena (e.g., metonymy)
than modern notions (see Ricœur 1975; Eco 1983).
4 To be precise, Black (1962: 34, 36) coined the ‘substitution view’ and ‘comparison view’ fallacies, which he
associated with Aristotle by means of two short footnotes. In the substitution view, says Black (1962: 32, 36),
“the word or expression having a distinctively metaphorical use within a literal frame, is used to communicate
a meaning that might have been expressed literally”, so that Richard is a lion “approximately means the same
as” Richard is brave (32, 36). This makes metaphor a decoration (34). In the comparison view, a metaphor is
“a condensed or elliptical simile”, so that Richard is a lion is approximately the same as Richard is like a lion
(in being brave) (36). The problem with the latter view, says Black (1962: 37), is the suggestion that metaphor
merely signals resemblances supposedly existing “prior to the construction of the metaphor”.
5 As Sullivan (2007: 31) notes, “there is no general agreement—​nor even much discussion—​on how to
define the type of ‘domain’ used in metaphor”. Generally, domain seems to refer to background knowledge
whose structural links arise from—​are grounded in—​experience and then organize that experience as a
complex whole with many components and relations.
6 Black (1962: 37) had already written that there are “cases” where “it would be more illuminating to say that
metaphor creates the similarity than to say that it formulates some similarity antecedently existing”. Lakoff
and Johnson (1980) do not credit Black (1962) for this idea.
7 Inspired by Kant’s notion of schema (1781), an image scheme is considered “more abstract than a [con-
crete] image but less abstract than a proposition” (Gleason 2009: 438 and references there).
8 Interestingly, Gleason (2009: 451) argues that “metaphor specific” imagery—​what he calls the visual
template of an image metaphor—​is typically richer in detail than the quite abstract image schemes but
somewhat more abstract or “sketched out” than specific detailed images because the visual template is a
“greatest-​common-​factor image”.
9 See also Halliwell (1986/​1998: 90), who notes that Aristotle defines “the endowment not as a mysterious
instinct but as ‘the capacity to see resemblances’ ”. Therefore, “although metaphor can be analytically
examined and classified […] it clearly remains resistant, in Aristotle’s eyes, to a ‘technical’ understanding
[…] The reason for this is that metaphor, although it can be regarded as a stylistic ornament alongside other
types, is valued by the philosopher as a unique means of expressing certain perceptions” (ibid.: 349, ori-
ginal emphasis).
10 Based on psycholinguistic experiments, Giora (2008: 628, and references there) hypothesizes the
salience-​nonsalience distinction, which distinguishes between text interpretation that relies on salient
lexical meaning (i.e., on coded meanings automatically activated by a lexical item) and interpret-
ation that combines salient meanings with non-​salient ones (i.e., derived from context). The salience-​
nonsalience distinction cuts across the literal-​figural divide: the interpretation of metaphors is often
exclusively based on salient meanings, which by themselves do not tend to produce poeticality, whereas
the interpretation of certain literal expressions combines salient and non-​salient meanings, which may
produce poeticality under certain conditions. For Giora, what makes discourse aesthetic or poetic, is not
the presence of metaphor per se, but rather the presence of an “optimally innovative stimulus”, that is,
a stimulus that activates a non-​salient sense of an expression and a salient (unavoidably activated) one
from which the non-​salient one differs qualitatively. This poetic effect may happen in metaphor, as when
the saliently literal Their bone density is not like ours is used metaphorically in a certain context, but it
may also happen in “literals”, as when the saliently metaphorical expression spill the beans is suddenly
used literally in a certain context (ibid.: 154). Thus, metaphor can be poetic, but so can literals. What
defines poeticality is an interesting combination of salient and non-​salient meanings that needs to be
processed.
11 My suggestion that mental imagery can “resolve” metaphors is inspired by Goodblatt and Glicksohn, who
have argued that the reading of difficult poetic metaphors is a form of “problem solving [that] involves an
act of perceptual and semantic restructuring” (2002: 428). A mental image of scattered geranium petals
is for example a (mental) percept that resolves a strange image metaphor. The characterization of some
imagery as “fanciful” is taken from Grady et al. (1997: 108).
12 Additionally, there is much experimental evidence that also refutes the Gricean-​Searlean idea that meta-
phor understanding is a two-​stage process (see Giora 2008 and references there).
13 Glucksberg’s theory (i.e., metaphor understanding as inclusion in a category produced on the fly) is explicitly
pitched against CMT (i.e., metaphor understanding as activating existent conceptual relations in the mind).
Thus, for McGlone (2001: 95), an associate of Glucksberg, CMT falls prey to circular reasoning: “How do
we know that people think of theories in terms of buildings? Because people often talk about theories using
building-​related expressions. Why do people often talk about theories using building-​related expressions?
Because people think about theories in terms of buildings.” This is criticism also formulated by researchers
closer to CMT (see Müller 2008: 16 and references there). However, the embodied-​gestural research of
Müller (2008) and other research (see Tendahl & Gibbs 2008: 1850) does offer empirical evidence that

22
 Notes

metaphors may appear dead on a systemic level but be awake or active in a specific discourse event.
Research such as Müller’s seems to turn the alleged circular reasoning into a kind of Kantian transcen-
dental deduction—​CMT has posited an abstract mechanism explaining empirical phenomena that would
otherwise remain unexplained, such as source-​domain-​related gestures or source-​domain-​related mental
imagery while producing supposedly dead metaphors (on the testability of CMT, see Gibbs 1994; and
Tendahl & Gibbs 2008).
14 Incidentally, the negative class inclusion statement shows that metaphor is not a matter of literal falseness
leading the interpreter to nonliteral truth (as some traditional pragmatic and other truth-​conditional accounts
suggest), because the negating sentence is literally true and nonetheless also meaningful in a metaphorical
interpretation.
15 This surgeon is a butcher is perhaps less likely to be literal than Caroline is a princess, but everything
always depends on context. When you say about your friend at a party that This surgeon is a butcher, a
special effect may actually lie in the fact that the relevance of your utterance is unexpectedly to be sought
in the literal meaning of the predicate. Some surgeons may also be butchers. A friend of mine is a certified
butcher with a PhD in DNA analysis; and there are conceivable contexts in which it is relevant to state lit-
erally This DNA analyst is a butcher.
16 Cognitive effects of utterances on audiences are defined as either information that is relevant because it
confirms and strengthens an existing assumption manifest to the hearer; or information that is relevant
because it contradicts an existing assumption (and possibly eliminates it); or information that is combin-
able with an existing assumption and so yields a new assumption (see also Tendahl & Gibbs 2008: 1848).
17 This mutual adjustment process always happens, in literal and metaphorical communication, so that RT
does not endorse the standard Gricean account of metaphor interpretation as a two-​stage process.
18 Compare this with Grady (2007: 206–​207), who concedes that there is continuity between metaphor and
category accommodation but goes on to stress the importance of metaphor as a distinct phenomenon: “there
is no sharp line between metaphor and cases where a category is ‘stretched’ to accommodate a new item
[…] Nevertheless, there is a massive body of indisputably metaphorical examples to serve as materials for
study; the ‘central’ cases are clear.”
19 See, e.g., Pilkington (2000: 94): “From the relevance theory point of view one would expect it to be the
case that there is no fixed hierarchy within the assumptions stored in the encyclopaedic entry attached
to a concept. Certain assumptions will become more highly salient in some contexts; other assumptions
will become more highly salient in other contexts.” This is true, of course, but concepts do have struc-
ture out of context. Here, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) would signal that the mind has a repertoire of
ICMs to exploit; Schank and Abelson (1977) would signal that the mind’s repeated confrontation with
similar situations and scenarios has sedimented a repertoire of scripts to exploit. Tendahl and Gibbs
(2008: 1835, 1859) wonder in that regard why RT “resists the notion of enduring metaphorical thought”
and suggest that conceptual metaphors exist in our minds and can be activated as “parts of our cogni-
tive environments”. This should appeal to RT, they argue, given RT’s interest in the degree of cognitive
accessibility of assumptions.
20 Pilkington (2000: 166–​169) does acknowledge (i) that the implicit background knowledge mobilized by
metaphors is conducive of “mutually manifest” assumptions and hence a feeling of intimacy and (ii) that
metaphors are suitable to communicate “a qualitative feel” and a precise and rich “phenomenal tone”
when readers access “phenomenal memories”, that is, remembered feelings of what certain things are like
(ibid.: 156ff).
21 All visually non-​impaired persons have visual mental imagery, but there are “high” and “low”
visualizers, as measurable by for example the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire or VVIQ (see
Marks 1973).
22 Carston (2018: 198) still claims that “mental imagery is not an essential component in the comprehension
of language […] but it is often automatically activated in the minds of hearers or readers as a by-​product”,
and that even in so-​called creative metaphors, “imagistic effects” are “not essential”, although they “can be
as significant as propositional cognitive effects”.
23 Somewhat relatedly, although without criticizing BT, Gleason (2009: 439, 458) argues regarding image
metaphor that the mind can “mingle parts of disconnected visual images” (2009: 458) and “shift back and
forth in the imagination” between different visual images but not “fuse the images” to “form a new image
with all the features of both”.
24 The textual or discursive surrounding of the metaphor should always be taken into account, because it
may indeed mobilize a large array of meanings or may do the exact opposite (i.e., pin meaning down,
textually or conventionally). The dominant xenophobic interpretation of wave in the combination waves
of immigrants depends for example to a large extent on the surrounding xenophobic discourse, because by
itself a wave can be a very positive thing—​both literally (as when a wave of seawater gushes over us on a
hot summer day) and metaphorically (as when you may like a certain wave of rock music).

23
 References

1 The phonologist Gerold Ungeheuer (1979: 97) introduces both terms assuming that every human being
experiences communication twice: (a) as a communicator during the execution of communicative acts
employed to achieve reciprocal understanding; and (b) as a (self-​)reflexive observer who tries to categorize
and analyze the means of communication from an external point of view.
2 “Sinnstiftung, Weltdeutung und Handlungsorientierung”.
1 In this chapter, we use the terms phonology and phoneme for gestural meaning-making. The term
­“phonology” is inappropriate for gesture, since it deals with how sound creates meaning. Attempts to create
an appropriate term for visual modalities, like Butterworth’s (1970) “kinesics” and “kines”, which fittingly
relates to any movement and thus encompasses multiple articulators, have failed. The terms from sign lin-
guistics “cherology” and “chereme” from Ancient Greek “hand” (Stokoe 1960) also were not able to catch
on.
1 The term MWU is used broadly in this chapter to refer to a variety of habitual expressions consisting of two
or more words, including collocations, idioms, phrasal verbs, formulae, and proverbs.
1 Though it should be added that the emergence of “new” and the disappearance of “old” constructions in
particular sub-​regions of the constructional network are, in many cases, interrelated processes in that, typ-
ically, constructional attrition is at least partly motivated by the emergence of a new construction—​or the
expansion of an existing construction—​which gradually encroaches on the older construction’s functional-​
semantic domain. Thus, Trousdale (2008a), for instance, discusses the end of the English impersonal con-
struction in relation to the emergence of a (more) schematic transitive construction.
2 In addition, the phenomenon of ‘constructional borrowing’ was already discussed in an early, unpublished,
paper by Adele Goldberg (1990).
1 Wang and Shi (2019) discuss the motivation of the rise and decline of the chī passive in Modern Chinese.
2 This group of examples are cited from Swan (2000: 228).
3 The following three groups of examples are cited from Swan (2000: 111–​112).

References
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign
language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic construction grammar.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bielak, J., & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language classroom. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J. (Eds.). (2009). Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Caballero, R. (2005). Reviewing space: Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cog-
nitive linguistics (pp. 395–​420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2016). Typology and the future of cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 587–​602.
De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The
case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–​538.
Gavins, J., & Steen, G. (Eds.). (2003). Cognitive poetics in practice. London: Routledge.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin
and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, T. (2019). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-​
syntax interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holme, R. (2004). Mind, metaphor and language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24
 References

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1(1), 39–​74.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987/​1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (2 vols.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Langacker, R. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Appling cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–​450.
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics (2 vols.). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition.
New York and London: Routledge.
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-​Antuñano, I. (2013). Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (2020). Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Tabakowska, E. (1993). Cognitive linguistics and poetics of translation. Tübingen: Gunter NarrVerlag.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tenbrink, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse analysis: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-​based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive
Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 3–​21.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
Tyler, A., Takada, M., Kim, Y., & Marinova, D. (Eds.). (2005). Language in use: Cognitive and discourse
perspectives on language and language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wen, X. (2019). Sociocognitive linguistics based on social cognition. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 293–​305.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of ‘over’. Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon.
New York: Garland.
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-​and-​frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing
(pp. 55–​81). Amsterdam: North-​Holland Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica, 6, 222–​254.
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics, 27, 587–​612.
Geeraerts, D. (1990). The lexicographical treatment of prototypical polysemy. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.),
Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 195–​210). London: Routledge.
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza
Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interactions
(pp. 163–​189). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic
readings (pp. 1–​28). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

25
 References

Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 527–​542.
Geeraerts, D., & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical
patterns. In J. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the construal of the world (pp. 153–​180).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G. (2015). Variationist linguistics. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 366–​389). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-​of-​the-​art review. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 1–​26.
Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2005). From perception to meaning. Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in mind and society. A functional contribution to the social turn in Cognitive
Linguistics. Berlin/​New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Heylen, K., Tummers, J., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). Methodological issues in corpus-​based Cognitive Linguistics.
In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models,
social systems (pp. 91–​128). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Oxford: Oxford Uiversity Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,
9, 37–​77.
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models,
social systems. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-​schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1, 39–​74.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland
& N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–​221). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar 2. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
McCawley, J. D. (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In B. J.
Darden, C. Bailey & A. Davidson (Eds.), Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.
71–​80). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Partee, B. H. (Ed.). (1976). Montague grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization
(pp. 27–​48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmid, H. (2010). Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn &
K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-​driven approaches (pp. 101–​133).
Berlin/​New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Schmid, H. J. (2016). Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of lan-
guage and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–​557.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Advances in cultural linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sinha, C., & Jensen de López, K. (2000). Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive
Linguistics, 11, 17–​41.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zlatev, J., Timothy P. R., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.). (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersub-
jectivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Broccias, C. (2003). The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Broccias, C., & Hollmann, W. B. (2007). Do we need summary and sequential scanning in (Cognitive)
Grammar? Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 487–​522.

26
 References

Bybee, J. (2010). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in
speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter,
Langacker, R. W. (2001a). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–​188.
Langacker, R. W. (2001b). Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7–​33.
Langacker, R. W. (2008a). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008b). Sequential and summary scanning: A reply. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 571–​584.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2014). Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski & H.
Sorva (Eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives (pp. 17–​72).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. (2015). Descriptive and discursive organization in Cognitive Grammar. In J. Daems, E. Zenner,
K. Heylen, D. Speelman & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms—​new paradoxes: Recontextualizing
language and linguistics (pp. 205–​218). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Langacker, R. W. (2016). Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse. In G. Drodżdż
(Ed.), Studies in lexicogrammar: Theory and applications (pp. 23–​53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pinheiro, D. (2018). Interview with Ronald W. Langacker. Revista Lingística, 14, 35–​47.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Achard, M. (2018). Teaching usage and concepts: Toward a cognitive pedagogical grammar. In A. Tyler, L.
Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp.
37–​63). Berlin/​Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Ackermann, F., & Webelhuth, G. (1998). A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2000). Recent trends in cross-​linguistic lexical studies. In B. Altenberg & S.
Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast (pp. 3–​50). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Auer, P. (2006). Construction Grammar meets conversation: Einige Überlegungen am Beispiel von “so”-​
Konstruktionenen. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 295–​315).
Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Baker, C., Ellsworth, M., & Erk, K. (2007). SemEval’07 task 19: Frame semantic structure extraction. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (pp. 99–​104). Association for
Computational Linguistics.
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-​based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Barðdal, J. (1999). Case in Icelandic: A construction grammar approach. TijdSchrift voor Skandinavistiek,
20(2), 65–​100.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barðdal, J. (2011). The rise of Dative Substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction
grammar account. Lingua, 121(1), 60–​79.
Barðdal, J. (2013). Construction-​based historical-​comparative reconstruction. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 438–​457). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barðdal, J. (2015). Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In C. Bowern & B. Evans (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of historical linguistics (pp. 343–​373). London: Routledge.
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L, & Gildea, S. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Behrens, H., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2016). Experience counts: Frequency effects in language. Berlin/​
Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Bencini, G. (2013). Psycholinguistics. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
Construction Grammar (pp. 379–​396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27
 References

Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-​based language understanding.
In J.-​O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions
(pp. 147–​190). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 191–​210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and language change. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2002a). On constructional polysemy and verbal polysemy in Construction Grammar. In V. Samiian
(ed.), Proceedings of the 2000 Western Conference on Linguistics. Vol. 12, 126–​139.
Boas, H. C. (2002b). Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. In González Rodríguez & C.
Paz Suárez Araujo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and
Evaluation. Las Palmas, Spain. Vol. IV, 1364–​1371.
Boas, H. C. (2003a). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Boas, H. C. (2003b). A lexical-​constructional account of the locative alternation. In L. Carmichael, C.-​H.
Huang, & V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference on Linguistics (Vol. 13) (pp. 27–​
42). Fresno, CA: California State University Publications.
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-​contraction? In M. Achard &
S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 479–​491). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Boas, H. C. (2005a). Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg &
Jackendoff. Language, 81(2), 448–​464.
Boas, H. C. (2005b). From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer &
D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im Lexikon (pp. 129–​160). Tübingen: Narr.
Boas, H. C. (2005c). Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases.
International Journal of Lexicography, 18(4), 445–​478.
Boas, H. C. (2008a). Resolving form-​meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.),
Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–​36). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2008b). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction
Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–​144.
Boas, H. C. (Ed.). (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography. Methods and applications.
Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boas, H. C. (Ed.). (2010a). Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2010b). Comparing constructions across languages. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in
Construction Grammar (pp. 1–​20). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2010c). The syntax-​lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English com-
munication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 24, 58–​86.
Boas, H. C. (2011a). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6),
1271–​1303.
Boas, H. C. (2011b). Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K.
Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 37–​69). Berlin/​New York: Walter
de Gruyter.
Boas, H. C. (2013a). Wie viel Wissen steckt in Wörterbüchern? Eine frame-​semantische Perspektive. Zeitschrift
für Angewandte Linguistik, 57, 75–​97.
Boas, H. C. (2013b). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–​254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boas, H. C. (2017a). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 549–​573). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boas, H. C. (2017b). What you see is not what you get: Capturing the meaning of missing words with Frame
Semantics. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 52, 53–​70.
Boas, H. C. (2019). Zur methodologischen Grundlage der empirischen Konstruktikographie. In D. Czicza, V.
Dekalo, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik VI. Varianz in der konstruktionalen Schematizität
(pp. 237–​263). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Boas, H. C. (2020a). English constructions. In B. Aarts, L. Hinrichs, & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of
English linguistics (pp. 277–297). Oxford: Wiley.
Boas, H. C. (2020b). A roadmap towards determining the universal status of semantic frames. In R. Enghels &
M. Lansegers (Eds.), New approaches to contrastive linguistics: Empirical and methodological challenges
(pp. 21–52). Berlin/​New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Boas, H. C., & Dux, R. (2017). From the past into the present: From case frames to semantic frames. Linguistics
Vanguard, 2017, 1–​14. DOI: 10.1515/​lingvan-​2016-​0003.

28
 References

Boas, H. C., & Fried, M. (2005). Introduction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back
to the roots (pp. 1–​11). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S. (Eds.). (2018a). Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact
phenomena in Germanic languages Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S. (2018b). Construction Grammar and language contact: An introduction. In H. C.
Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in
Germanic languages (pp. 5–​36). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C., & Höder S. (Eds.). (2021). Constructions in contact 2. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35(1), 41–​95.
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-​based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018a). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodo-
logical issues. In B. Lyngfelt, T. Timponi Torrent, L. Borin, & K. Hirose Ohara (Eds.), Constructicography.
Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–​228). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018b). Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In H. C.
Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German (pp. 1–​46). Berlin/​
Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Booij, G. (2013). Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–​273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, G. (2017). Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–​273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broccias, C. (2013). Cognitive Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
Construction Grammar (pp. 211–​232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bücker, J., Günthner, S., & Imo, W. (Eds.). (2015). Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld
von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Butt, M., Dalrymple, M., & Frank, A. (1997). An architecture for linking theory in LFG. In Proceedings of the
LFG97 Conference (pp. 1–​16). University of California San Diego.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Bybee, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical
morphology (pp. 119–​141). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–​733.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-​based theory and exemplar representations. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–​69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapin, P. G. (1972). Review of Stockwell, Schachter & Hall Partee (1968), Integration of Transformational
Theories on English Syntax. Language, 48, 645–​667.
Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied
Mathematics (Vol. 12, pp. 6–​24). American Mathematical Society.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Government and Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1989). Language and mind. The Darwin Lecture, Darwin College.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3),
247–​282.
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2008). Accounting for ditransitive constructions with envy and forgive.
Functions of Language, 15(2), 187–​215.
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in
the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–​209.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-​
U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günther Radden (pp. 49–​68). Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of Construction Grammar (pp. 211–​232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind, and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on the-
ories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

29
 References

Dąbrowska, E. (2008). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity
with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-​based approaches to morphology. Journal of
Memory and Language, 58(4), 931–​951.
Das, D., et al. (2010). Probabilistic frame-​semantic parsing. Conference Proceedings of Human Language
Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (pp. 948–​956).
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.). (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter.
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2017). The family of German dative constructions. In F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibañez,
A. L. Oyon, & P. P. Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 205–​240). Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Deppermann, A., Fiehler, R., & Spranz-​Fogasy, T. (Eds.). (2006). Grammatik und Interaktion—​Untersuchungen
zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprāchsprozessen. Radolfszell: Verlag für
Gesprächsforschung.
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diessel, H. (2013). Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and
demonstratives in the evolution of language. Language and Cognition, 5, 239–​249.
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010). Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in gram-
maticalization. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Domínguez Vázquez, M. J. (2015). Die Form und Bedeutung der Konstruktion bei der hierarchischen
Vernetzung, Verlinkung und Vererbung. Vorschlag zu einem Konstruktionsnetz. In S. Engelberg, M.
Meliss, K. Proost, & E. Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion (pp. 109–​126).
Tübingen: Narr.
Dux, R. (2016). A usage-​based account of verb classes in English and German. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin.
Ellis, N. (2013). Construction Grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365–​378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N., Römer, U., & Brook O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-​based approaches to language acquisition and
processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Wiley.
Engelberg, S. (2018). The argument structure of psych-​verbs: A quantitative corpus study on cognitive
entrenchment. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in
German (pp. 47–​84). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.
1–​88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Topics in lexical semantics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp.
76–​136). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole (Ed.), Grammatical relations (pp. 59–​81).
New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1978). On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. Papers from the Parasession
on the Lexicon, Chicago Linguistic Society, 148–​173.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). Innocence: A second idealization for linguistics. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 63–​76.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea
(pp. 111–​138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985a). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. Berkeley Linguistic
Society, 11, 73–​86.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985b). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica, 6(2), 222–​254.
Fillmore, C. J. (1986a). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–​107.
Fillmore, C. J. (1986b). Varieties of conditional sentences. In F. Marshall, A. Miller, & Z.-​S. Zhang (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 163–​182). Columbus, OH: Ohio
State Department of Linguistics.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar.” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–​55.
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich &
C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–​38). Amsterdam: North-​Holland/​
Elsevier.
Fillmore, C. J. (1992). Corpus linguistics vs. computer-​aided armchair linguistics. In J. Svartvik (Ed.),
Directions in corpus linguistics (pp. 35–​60). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

30
 References

Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Inversion and constructional inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J.-​P. Koenig, & A. Kathol
(Eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (pp. 113–​128). Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Form and meaning in language. Volume 1. Papers on semantic roles. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–​
400). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the XIII
EURALEX International Congress (Barcelona, July 15–​19, 2008), 49–​68.
Fillmore, C. J. (2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 111–​132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2001). Frame semantics for text understanding. In Proceedings of WordNet and
other lexical resources workshop. Pittsburgh: NAACL.
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar course book. UC Berkeley: Department of Linguistics.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The
case for let alone. Language, 64, 501–​538.
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-​Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag
(Eds.), Sign-​based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–​372). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Fontenelle, T. (1997). Turning a bilingual dictionary into a lexical-​semantic database. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Fried, M. (2003). Dimensions of syntactic change: Evidence from the long—​nt—​participle in Old Czech texts.
In R. A. Maguire & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The American contributions to the Thirteenth International
Congress of Slavists, 79–​92.
Fried, M. (2004). Predicate semantics and event construal in Czech case marking. In M. Fried & J.-​O. Östman
(Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-​language perspective (pp. 87–​120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fried, M. (2009). Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions.
In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Context and constructions (pp. 63–​96). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Fried, M. (2013). Principles of constructional change. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 419–​438). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fujii, S. (2004). Lexically (un)filled constructional schemes and construction types: The case of Japanese
modal conditional constructions. In M. Fried & J.-​O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-​
language perspective (pp. 121–​156). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Garibyan, A., Balog, E., & Herbst, T. (2019). L2-​constructions that go together—​more on valency constructions
and learner language. In C. Juchem-​Grundmann, M. Pleyer, & M. Pleyer (Eds.), Yearbook of the German
Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 9–​30). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gildea, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 28(3),
245–​288.
Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-​of-​the-​art review. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 1–​26.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2001). Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure
in argument distribution. Language Science, 34, 503–​524.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. (2019). Explain me this. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80,
532–​568.
Gonzálvez-​García, F. (2017). Exploring inter-​constructional relations in the constructicon: A view from
Contrastive (Cognitive) Construction Grammar. In F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibañez, A. L. Oyon, & P. P. Sobrino
(Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 135–​174). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gries, S. (2013). Data in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of Construction Grammar (pp. 93–​110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, S. T. (2017). Ten lectures on quantitative approaches in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-​linguistic, experi-
mental, and statistical applications. Leiden/​Boston: Brill
Gries, S. T. (2019). 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/​corrections (to/​of actually all
sorts of corpus-​linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 385–​412.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-​based perspective on
‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–​129.
Günthner, S., & Imo, W. (Eds.). (2006). Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.

31
 References

Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hens, G. (1996). (jm)(einen Brief) schreiben: Zur Valenz in der Konstruktionsgrammatik. Linguistische
Berichte, 164, 334–​356.
Herbst, T. (2017). Grünes Licht für pädagogische Konstruktionsgrammatik—​Denn: Linguistik ist nicht (mehr)
nur Chomsky. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 46(2), 119–​135.
Hilpert, M. (2013a). Corpus-​based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 458–​475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2013b). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and
syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its applications to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Hilpert, M. (2017). Frequencies in diachronic corpora and knowledge of language. In M. Hundt, S. Pfenninger, &
S. Mollin (Eds.), The changing English language—​ Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 49–​68).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K.
Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–​257).
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Höder, S. (2014a). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli &
B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–​152). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Höder, S. (2014b). Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and
Frames, 6, 202–​231.
Höder, S. (2016). Niederdeutsche Form, unspezifische Struktur. Diasystematische Konstruktionen in der
deutsch-​dänischen Kontaktzone. In H. Spiekermann et al. (Eds.), Niederdeutsch: Grenzen, Strukturen,
Variation (pp. 293–​309). Wien/​Köln/​Weimar: Böhlau.
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 307–​328). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hollmann, W. (2013). Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 491–​510). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hollmann, W., & Siewerska, A. (2006). Corpora and (the need for) other methods in a study of Lancashire dia-
lect. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 54, 203–​216.
Hollmann, W., & Siewerska, A. (2011). The status of frequency, schemas and identity in cognitive
sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 25–​54.
Imo, W. (2013). Sprache in Interaktion. Analysemethoden und Untersuchungsfelder. Berlin/​New York: De
Gruyter.
Israel, M. (1996).The way-​constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and lan-
guage (pp. 217–​230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Iwata, S. (2005). The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.),
Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 101–​118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iwata, S. (2008). Locative alternation: A lexical-​ constructional account. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73, 532–​559.
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An on-​line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the
representation and use of linguistic knowledge. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Kay, P. (2002). English subjectless tagged sentences. Language, 78, 453–​481.
Kay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-​adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. C.
Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 71–​98). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X
doing Y?’ construction. Language, 75, 1–​33.
Klotz, M. (2000). Grammatik und Lexik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
Labov, W. (2019). What has been built on empirical foundations. In H. C. Boas & M. Pierce (Eds.), New
directions for historical linguistics (pp. 42–​57). Leiden: Brill.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (2004). On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions. In
M. Fried & J.-​O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-​language perspective (pp. 157–​199).
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

32
 References

Lambrecht, K., & Lemoine, K. (2005). Definite null objects in (spoken) French. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.),
Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 13–​56). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-​based model. In B. Rudzka-​Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.
127–​161). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-​based model. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-​based models
of language (pp. 1–​64). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Lasch, A. (2016). Nonagentive Konstruktionen des Deutschen. Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter.
Lee-​Goldman, R., & Petruck, M. R. L. (2018). The FrameNet constructicon in action. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin,
K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp.
19–​41). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lehmann, C. (1985). On grammatical relationality. Folia Linguistica, 19, 67–​110.
Leino, J. (2005). Frames, profiles and constructions: Two collaborating CGs meet the Finnish permissive con-
struction. In J.-​O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical
extensions (pp. 89–​120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leino, J. (2013). Information structure. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
Construction Grammar (pp. 329–​346). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Luzondo, A. (2014). Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 12(1), 30–​63.
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction: Constructions and constructicography. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin , K. Ohara,
& T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages (pp. 1–​18).
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon develop-
ment across languages. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Madlener, K. (2015). Frequency effects in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin/​Boston: Walter de
Gruyter.
Medina, P.G. (2017). The English conative as a family of constructions. Towards a usage-​based approach. In
F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibanez, A. L. Oyon, & P. P. Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp.
277–​300). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion.
Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–​68.
Michaelis, L. (2005). Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J.-​O. Östman & M. Fried
(Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–​89). Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Michaelis, L. (2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-​based
Construction Grammar (pp. 30–​68). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Michaelis, L. (2013). Sign-​Based Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 133–​152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K. (1996a). Toward a construction-​based theory of language function: The case
of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–​247.
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996b). The exclamative sentence type in English. In A. Goldberg (Ed.),
Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 375–​389). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Michaelis, L., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2001). Beyond alternations. A constructional model of the German applica-
tive pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mukherjee, J., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-​construction associ-
ations in the International Corpus of English. English World-​Wide, 30(1), 27–​51.
Nemoto, N. (2005). Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on
the locative alternation. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp.
119–​136). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ohara, K. H. (1996). A constructional approach to Japanese internally headed relativization. PhD dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Osswald, R., & Van Valin, R. D. (2014). FrameNet, frame structure, and the syntax-​semantics interface. In
Frames and concept types (pp. 125–​156). Cham: Springer.
Östman, J.-​O., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann &
G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 476–​490). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

33
 References

Peña, M. S. (2017). Revisiting the English resultative family of constructions. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez,
A. L. Oyon, & P. P. Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 175–​204). Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-​based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-​based
perspectives. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perek, F., & Patten, A. L. (2019). Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 354–​384.
Petruck, M. R. L., Fillmore, C. J., Baker, C., Ellsworth, M., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2004). Reframing FrameNet
data. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress, Lorient, France, 405–​416.
Pierce, M., & Boas, H. C. (2019). Where was historical linguistics in 1968 and where is it now? In H. C. Boas
& M. Pierce (Eds.), New directions for historical linguistics (pp. 1–​41). Leiden: Brill.
Proost, K. (2017). The role of verbs and verb classes in identifying German search-​constructions. In F. J. R. de
Mendoza Ibañez, A. L. Oyon, & P. P. Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 17–​52).
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.
Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–​605.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. C., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended
theory and practice. Available at [http://​framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu].
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L. (2014). Frames and the interpretation of omitted arguments in English. In S.
Katz Bourns & L. Myers (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on structure and context: Studies in honor of Knud
Lambrecht (pp. 57–​86). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ruppenhofer, J., & Rehbein, I. (2012). Semantic frames as an anchor representation for sentiment analysis.
In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop in Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis,
104–​109. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Sag, I. (2010). English filler-​gap constructions. Language, 86(3), 486–​545.
Sag, I. (2012). Sign-​Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-​
Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–​201). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sag, I., Boas, H. C., & Kay, P. (2012). Introducing Sign-​Based Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag
(Eds.), Sign-​Based Construction Grammar (pp. 1–​30). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Salkoff, M. (1983). Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language,
59(2), 288–​346.
Sampson, G. (2003). Empirical linguistics. London/​New York: Continuum Publications.
Saussure, F. D. (1916). Course in general linguistics (trans. Wade Baskin). London: Fontana/​Collins.
Scheffczyk, J., Baker, C., & Narayanan, S. (2010). Reasoning over natural language text by means of FrameNet
and ontologies. In Huang, Chu-​ren et al. (Eds.), Ontology and the lexicon: A natural language processing
perspective. Studies in natural language processing (pp. 53–​71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Somers, H. L. (1987). Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article emergence in Old English. Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter.
Steels, L. (2013). Fluid Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of Construction Grammar (pp. 152–​167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative evidence and preemption: A constructional approach to ungrammaticality.
Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 513–​531.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of Construction Grammar (pp. 290–​306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: On the interaction between verbs and constructions.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–​243.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory,
1(1), 1–​43.
Thomason, S. (2019). Historical linguistics since 1968: On some of the causes of linguistic change. In H. C.
Boas & M. Pierce (Eds.), New directions for historical linguistics (pp. 110–​131). Leiden: Brill.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-​based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. C (2019). Precursors of work on grammaticalization and constructionalization in directions for
historical linguistics. In H. C. Boas & M. Pierce (Eds.), New directions for historical linguistics (pp. 132–​
152). Leiden: Brill.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Tsujimura, N. (2005). A constructional approach to mimetic verbs. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.),
Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 137–​156). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

34
 References

Van der Leek, F. (2000). Caused-​motion and the ‘bottom-​up’ role of grammar. In A. Foolen & F. van
der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 301–​331). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Van Trijp, R. (2013). A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-​Based Construction
Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–​116.
Van Trijp, R. (2015). Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of coercion and argument struc-
ture. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 613–​632.
Vázquez-​González, J. G., & Barðdal, J. (2019). Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-​
Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-​Icelandic. Folia Linguistica Historica, 40(2), 555–​620.
Webelhuth, G. (2012). The distribution of that-​clauses in English: An SBCG account. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag
(Eds.), Sign-​Based Construction Grammar (pp. 203–​228). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Wechsler, S. (2015). Word meaning and syntax. Approaches to the interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weigand, E. (1998). Contrastive lexical semantics. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp.
25–​44). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In
W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 95–​188). Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Wulff, S. (2013). Words and idioms. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
Construction Grammar (pp. 274–​289). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wulff, S., Griss, S. T., & Lester, N. (2018). Optional that complementation by German and Spanish learners.
In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA
research (pp. 99–​120). Berlin/​Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Yoon, J., & Gries, S. T. (Eds.). (2016). Corpus-​based approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zeschel, A. (2008). Funktionsverbgefüge als Idiomverbände. In A. Stefanowitsch & K. Fischer (Eds.),
Konstruktionsgrammatik II. Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 263–​278). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Zeschel, A. (2015). Semiautomatische Identifikation von Argumentstrukturkonstruktionen in großen Korpora.
In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost, & E. Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und
Konstruktion (pp. 451–​468). Tübingen: Narr.
Ziem, A. (2008). Frames und sprachliches Wissen. Berlin/​New York: De Gruyter.
Ziem, A. (2015). Probleme und Desiderata einer Social Construction Grammar. In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.),
Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen (pp. 1–​22).
Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2014). Grammatische Konstruktionen und semantische Frames für
die Textanalyse. In J. Hagemann & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Syntaxtheorien. Analysen im Vergleich (pp. 297–​
333). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Zwicky, A. M. (1994). Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of grammatical constructions. In S. Gahl, A.
Dolbey, & C. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society (pp. 611–​625). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc.
Zwicky, A. M. (1995). Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. Ohio Working
Papers in Linguistics, 47, 111–​123.
Andrén, M. (2010). Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. (Doctoral dissertation, Lund University: Centre
for Languages and Literature).
Beck, S. (1997). On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20(3), 229−271.
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-​based language
understanding. In J. O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and the-
oretical extensions (pp. 147–​190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 168–​190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bergs, A., & Hoffmann, T. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18, 1–​27.
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-​based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bressem, J. (2013). A linguistic perspective on the notation of form features in gestures. In C. Müller et al.
(Eds.), Body—​language—​communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human inter-
action. Vol. 1. (pp. 1079–​1098). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bressem, J., & Müller, C. (2017). The “Negative-​Assessment-​Construction”—​A multimodal pattern based on
a recurrent gesture? Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1).
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’ s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–​733.
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35
 References

Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-​based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann

& G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–​69). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cappelle, B. (2011). The the…the… construction: Meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1),
99–​117.
Cienki, A. (2015). Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition, 7, 499–​514.
Cohen, A. A. (1977). The communicative function of hand illustrators. Journal of Communication, 27, 54–​63.
Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-​term, short-​term, and working memory? Progress
in Brain Research, 169, 323–​333.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative.
Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 543−571.
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-​evolution of language and the human brain. London: Penguin.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–​168.
Ellis, N. (2013). Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–​378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 14, 35–​55.
DOI: 10.3765/​bls.v14i0.1794
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The
case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501−538.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
7(5), 219–​224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of construction grammar (pp. 15–​31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, E. (2018). Creativity: The human brain in the age of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, S. T. (2013). Data in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of construction grammar (pp. 99–​100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. London: Harvill Secker.
Hoffmann, T. (2017a). From constructions to construction grammar. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 284–​309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, T. (2017b). Construction grammars. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 310–​329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, T. (2017c). Multimodal constructs–​Multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the
working memory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​10.
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and construction grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für
Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–​276.
Hoffmann, T. (2019a). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-​
syntax interface (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffmann, T. (2019b). Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity.
Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1), 379–​396.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An on-​line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In American Association
for Artificial Intelligence (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-​
92) (pp. 302–​308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kendon, A. (2013). Exploring the utterance roles of visible bodily action: A personal account. In C. Müller
et al. (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction. Vol. 1 (pp. 7–​28). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. R. de Mendoza
Ibáñez & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction
(pp. 101–​159). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

36
 References

Lanwer, J. P. (2017). Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in

the light of usage-​based theory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​12.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (2000). Introduction. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 1–​10). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McNeill, D. (2013a). Gesture as a window onto mind and brain, and the relationship to linguistic relativity and
ontogenesis. In C. Müller et al. (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication: An international handbook on
multimodality in human interaction. Vol. 1 (pp. 28–​54). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
McNeill, D. (2013b). Gestures as a medium of expression: The linguistic potential of gestures. In C. Müller
et al. (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction. Vol. 1 (pp. 202–​217). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Michaelis, L. A. (2010). Sign-​based construction grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of linguistic analysis (pp. 155–​176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-​based construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of construction grammar (pp. 133–​152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mittelberg, I. (2013). The exbodied mind: Cognitive-​semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In
C. Müller et al. (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication: An international handbook on multimodality in
human interaction. Vol. 1 (pp. 755–​784). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Mittelberg, I. (2017). Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experi-
ential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​14. DOI: 10.1515/​
lingvan-​2016–​0047
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill D., & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.). (2013). Body—​
language—​communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Vol. 1
(Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill D., & SedinhaTeßendorf (Eds.). (2014). Body—​
language—​communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Vol. 2
(Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, S. (2018). Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-​based approaches (2nd
revised and extended ed.) (Textbooks in Language Sciences 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Ningelgen, J., & Auer, P. (2017). Is there a multimodal construction based on non-​deictic so in German?
Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​15. DOI: 10.1515/​lingvan-​2016–​0051
Pagán Cánovas, C., & Antović, M. (2016). Formulaic creativity: Oral poetics and cognitive grammar. Language
and Communication, 47, 66–​74. DOI: 10.1016/​j.langcom.2015.12.001
Schmid, H. J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schoonjans, S. (2014). Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen. Eine korpusbasierte
Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Leuven, Leuven).
Schoonjans, S. (2017). Multimodal construction grammar issues are construction grammar issues. Linguistics
Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​8. DOI: 10.1515/​lingvan-​2016–​0050
Schoonjans, S., Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2015). Multimodalität in der Konstruktionsgrammatik: Eine
kritische Betrachtung illustriert anhand einer Gestikanalyse der Partikeleinfach. In J. Bücker, W. Imo, & S.
Günthner (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V (pp. 291–​308). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Steels, L. (2013). Fluid construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
construction grammar (pp. 153–​167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steen, F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal construction grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell
(Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 255–​274). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Steen, F., et al. (2018). Toward an infrastructure for data-​driven multimodal communication research.
Linguistics Vanguard, 4(1), 1–​9. DOI: 10.1515/​lingvan-​2017–​0041
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction
grammar (pp. 290–​306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition: An essay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Turner, M. (2018). The role of creativity in multimodal construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und
Amerikanistik, 66(3), 357–​370. DOI: 10.1515/​zaa-​2018–​0030
Ziem, A. (2017). Do we really need a multimodal construction grammar? Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​9.
Zima, E. (2014). Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studiezu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way
from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung—​Online-​Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 15, 1–​18.
Zima, E. (2017). On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​12.
DOI: 10.1515/​lingvan-​2016–​0055

37
 References

Zima, E., & Bergs, A. (2017a). Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 1–​9.
Zima, E., & Bergs, A. (Eds.). (2017b). Towards a multimodal construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard
(Special Issue), 3.
Bromhead, H. (2009). The reign of truth and faith: Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th century English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bromhead, H. (2018). Landscape and culture—​Cross-​linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bullock, D. (2012–​2020). Learn these words first. Multi-​layer dictionary for second-​language learners of
English [https://​learnthesewordsfirst.com]
Caffery, J., & Hill, D. (2019). Expensive English: An accessible language approach for Papua New Guinea
agricultural development. Development in Practice, 29(2), 147–​158. doi: 10.1080/​09614524.2018.1530195
Farese, G. M. (2018a). The cultural semantics of address practices: A contrastive study between English and
Italian. London: Lexington Books.
Farese, G. M. (2018b). Is KNOW a semantic universal? Shiru, wakaru and Japanese ethno-​epistemology.
Language Sciences, 66, 135–​150.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R. J. Jarvell & W. Klein (Eds.),
Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 31–​59). London: Wiley.
Forbes, A. (2020). Using Minimal English to model a parental understanding of autism. In Sadow et al.
(Eds.), Studies in ethnopragmatics, cultural semantics, and intercultural communication (pp. 143–​163).
Singapore: Springer.
Gladkova, A. (2010). Russkajakul’turnajasemantika: Émocii, cennosti, žiznennyeustanovki [Russian cultural
semantics: Emotions, values, attitudes]. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures.
Goddard, C. (1989). Issues in Natural Semantic Metalanguage. Quaderni di semantica, 10(1), 51–​64.
Goddard, C. (2008). Natural Semantic Metalanguage: The state of the art. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Cross-​linguistic
semantics (pp. 1–​34). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goddard, C. (2010). A piece of cheese, a grain of sand: The semantics of mass nouns and unitizers. In F.
J. Pelletier (Ed.), Kinds, things and stuff. Mass terms and generics (pp. 132–​165). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Goddard, C. (2015). Verb classes and valency alternations (NSM approach), with special reference to English
physical activity verbs. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages (pp.
1649–​1680). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goddard, C. (2018a). Ten lectures on Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Exploring language, thought and cul-
ture using simple, translatable words. Leiden: Brill.
Goddard, C. (2018b). Minimal English: The science behind it. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Minimal English for a
global world (pp. 29–​70). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goddard, C. (2020a). Prototypes, polysemy, and constructional semantics: The lexicogrammar of the English
verb climb. In H. Bromhead & Z. Ye (Eds.), Meaning, life and culture: In conversation with Anna Wierzbicka
(pp. 13–32). Canberra: ANU Press.
Goddard, C. (2020b). Overcoming the linguistic challenges for ethno-​epistemology: NSM perspectives. In M.
Mizumoto, J. Ganeri, & C. Goddard (Eds.), Ethno-​epistemology: New directions for global epistemology.
London: Routledge.
Goddard, C. (Ed.). (2021). Minimal languages in action. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds.). (2002). Meaning and universal grammar—​Theory and empirical
findings. Vols. I and II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages
and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Explicating the English lexicon of “doing” and “happening”. Functions
of Language, 23(2), 214–​256.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2019). Cognitive semantics, linguistic typology and grammatical poly-
semy: “Possession” and the English genitive. Cognitive Semantics, 5, 224–​247.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2021). “We”: Conceptual semantics, linguistic typology and social cognition.
Language Sciences 83 (January) [published online October 2020]
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., & Fábrega, H., Jr. (2014). Evolutionary semantics: Using NSM to model stages
in human cognitive evolution. Language Sciences, 42, 60–​79.
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., & Wong, J. (2016). ‘Walking’ and ‘running’ in English and German: The concep-
tual semantics of verbs of human locomotion. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2), 303–​336.
Goddard, C., & Ye, Z. (Eds.). (2016). “Happiness” and “pain” across languages and cultures. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Hein, J. (2020). Europeanized places, Europeanized people: The discursive construction of Argentina. Journal
of Postcolonial Linguistics, 2, 28–​45.

38
 References

Jordan, P. (2017). How to start, carry on, and end conversations. Scripts for social interaction for people on
the autism spectrum. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.
Leibniz, G. W. (1966). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Ed. Louis Couturat. Paris: Alcan, 1903;
reprint ed. Hildesheim: Olms.
Leibniz, G. W. (1989/​1690). Preface to an edition of Nizolius. In L. E. Loemker (Ed.), Philosophical papers
and letters (pp. 121–​130). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Levisen, C. (2012). Cultural semantics and social cognition. A case study on the Danish universe of meaning.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levisen, C., & Waters, S. (Eds.). (2017). Cultural keywords in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Machin, E. (2021). Minimal English and revitalisation education: Assisting linguists to explain grammar in
simple, everyday words. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Minimal languages in action (pp. 83–107). Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Newman, J. (Ed.). (2009). The linguistics of eating and drinking. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Peeters, B. (Ed.). (2006). Semantic primes and universal grammar: Empirical findings from the Romance
languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sadow, L. (2019). An NSM-​based cultural dictionary of Australian English: From theory to practice. PhD
thesis, The Australian National University.
Sadow, L., Peeters, B., & Mullan, K. (Eds.). (2020). Studies in ethnopragmatics, cultural semantics, and
intercultural communication: Minimal English (and beyond). Singapore: Springer.
Sibly, A. (2010). Harry slapped Hugo, Tracey smacked Ritchie: The semantics of slap and smack. Australian
Journal of Linguistics, 30(3), 323–​348.
Tien, A. (2015). The semantics of Chinese music. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. (1972). Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics: Culture and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-​cultural pragmatics (expanded 2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2009a). “Reciprocity”: An NSM approach to linguistic typology and social universals. Studies
in Language, 33(1), 103–​174.
Wierzbicka, A. (2009b). Case in NSM: A reanalysis of the Polish dative. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 151–​169). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Experience, evidence, sense: The hidden cultural legacy of English. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2015). Innate conceptual primitives manifested in the languages of the world and in infant
cognition. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: New directions (pp. 379–​412). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2018a). I KNOW: A human universal. In M. Mizumoto, S. Stich, & E. McCready (Eds.),
Epistemology for the rest of the world (pp. 215–​250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2018b). Talking about the universe in Minimal English: Teaching science through words
that children can understand. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Minimal English for a global world (pp. 169–​200).
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wierzbicka, A. (2019). What Christians believe. The story of God and people in Minimal English.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2020). The biblical roots of English ‘love’: The concept of ‘love’ in a historical and cross-​
linguistic perspective. International Journal of Language and Culture, 6(2), 225–​254.
Wierzbicka, A. (in press). The meaning of the Christian confession of faith: Explaining the Nicene Creed through
universal human concepts. In L. Iomdin (Ed.), Semantics: Festschrift for Juri Apresjan. Moscow: Jazyki
slavianskix kul’tur.
Wong, J. O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Vanhatalo, U., Tissari, H., & Idström, A. (2014). Revisiting the universality of Natural Semantic Metalanguage: A
view through Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 67–​94.
Ye, Z. (Ed.). (2017). The semantics of nouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adger, D., & Trousdale, G. (2007). Variation in English syntax: Theoretical implications. English Language
and Linguistics, 11, 261–​278.

39
 References

Berry, M. (2019). The clause. An overview of the lexicogrammar. In G. Thompson, W. Bowcher, L. Fontaine,
& D. Schönthal (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 92–​117).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Brooks, T., & Cid de Garcia, D. (2015). Evidence for morphological composition in compound words using
MEG. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience. https://​doi.org/​10.3389/​fnhum.2015.00215
Brown, D., & Hippisley, A. (2012). Network morphology. A default-​ based theory of word structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Camdzic, A., & Hudson, R. (2007). Serbo-​Croat clitics and word grammar. Research in Language (University
of Lodz), 4, 5–​50.
Dahl, Ö. (1980). Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: A reply to Hudson’s “Constituency and depend-
ency”. Linguistics, 18, 485–​488.
Duran Eppler, E. (2011a). Emigranto. The syntax of German-​English code-​switching. Vienna: Braumüller.
Duran Eppler, E. (2011b). The Dependency Distance Hypothesis for bilingual code-​switching. In Proceedings
of DepLing 2011.
Fiorentino, R., & Fund-​Reznicek, E. (2009). Masked morphological priming of compound constituents. The
Mental Lexicon, 4, 159–​193.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gisborne, N. (2008). Dependencies are constructions. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional
approaches to English grammar (pp. 219–​256). New York: Mouton.
Gisborne, N. (2010). The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gisborne, N. (2011). Constructions, Word Grammar, and grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 22,
155–​182.
Gisborne, N. (2017). Defaulting to the new Romance synthetic future. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.),
Defaults in morphological theory (pp. 151–​181). Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.
Gisborne, N. (2019). Word Grammar morphology. In F. Mansini & J. Audring (Eds.), Oxford handbook of mor-
phological theory (pp. 327–​345). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gisborne, N. (forthcoming). Ten lectures on event structure in a network theory of language. Leiden: Brill.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holmes, J. (2005). Lexical properties of English verbs. London: UCL.
Holmes, J., & Hudson, R. (2005). Constructions in Word Grammar. In J.-​O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.),
Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 243–​272). Amsterdam:
Benjamins. www.benjamins.com/​cgi-​bin/​t_​bookview.cgi?bookid=CAL%203
Hudson, R. (1980). A second attack on constituency: A reply to Dahl. Linguistics, 18, 489–​504.
Hudson, R. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hudson, R. (1990). English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hudson, R. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R. (1997a). Inherent variability and linguistic theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 73–​108.
Hudson, R. (1997b). The rise of auxiliary DO: Verb-​non-​raising or category-​strengthening? Transactions of the
Philological Society, 95(1), 41–​72.
Hudson, R. (2000). *I amn’t. Language, 76, 297–​323.
Hudson, R. (2003). Gerunds without phrase structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 579–​615.
Hudson, R. (2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hudson, R. (2008a). Buying and selling in Word Grammar. In P. Hanks (Ed.), Critical concepts in lexicology.
London: Routledge.
Hudson, R. (2008b). Word Grammar and Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.),
Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 257–​302). New York: Mouton.
Hudson, R. (2008c). Word Grammar, cognitive linguistics and second-​language learning and teaching. In P.
Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 89–​
113). London: Routledge.
Hudson, R. (2010). An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R. (2013). A cognitive analysis of John’s hat. In K. Börjars, D. Denison, & A. Scott (Eds.),
Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession (pp. 149–​175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hudson, R. (2017). French pronouns in cognition. In A. Hippisley & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Defaults in morpho-
logical theory (pp. 114–​150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hudson, R. (2018). Pied piping in cognition. Journal of Linguistics, 54, 85–​138. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​
S0022226717000056

40
 References

Hudson, R., & Holmes, J. (2000). Re-​cycling in the encyclopedia. In B. Peeters (Ed.), The lexicon/​encyclo-
pedia interface. (pp. 259–​290). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hudson, R., Rosta, A., Holmes, J., & Gisborne, N. (1996). Synonyms and syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 32,
439–​446.
Lamb, S. (1966). Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lamb, S. (1998). Pathways of the brain. The neurocognitive basis of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. (2007). Cognitive grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–​462). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., Breen, M., & Gibson, E. (2014). The processing of extraposed structures in English.
Cognition, 122, 12–​36.
Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J. (2017). Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural
languages. Physics of Life Reviews.
Michaelis, L. (2013). Sign-​based Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 132–​152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Percival, K. (1976). On the historical source of immediate constituent analysis. In J. McCawley (Ed.), Notes
from the linguistic underground. (pp. 229–​242). London: Academic Press.
Percival, K. (1990). Reflections on the history of dependency notions in linguistics. Historiographia
Linguistica, 17, 29–​47.
Traugott, E., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37, 491–​514.
Beardsley, C. M. (1958). Aesthetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Du Bois, W. J. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–​410.
Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-​Nearman. C., & Giora, R. (2018). The role of defaultness in sarcasm interpret-
ation: Evidence from eye-​tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 148–​162.
Gibbs, W. R., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive
Linguistics, 8(3), 183–​206.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giora, R. (2006). Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors.
Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 981–​1014.
Giora, R. (2007). ‘A good Arab is not a dead Arab—​a racist incitement’: On the accessibility of negated
concepts. In I. Kecskes & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and
intercultural aspects (pp. 129–​162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R. (2020). How defaultness shapes our language production: A usage-​based study of discoursal reson-
ance with default interpretations of metaphor and sarcasm. In J. Barnden & A. Gargett (Eds.), Production
of figurative language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., & Alkabets, I. (2005). Negation as positivity in disguise. In H. L. Colston
& N. A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 233–​258).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giora, R., & Becker, I. (2019). S/​he is not the most sparkling drink in the pub: Global vs. local cue—​which will
reign supreme? Metaphor and Symbol, 34(3), 141–​157.
Giora, R., Cholev, A., Fein, O., & Peleg, O. (2018). On the superiority of defaultness: Hemispheric perspectives
of processing negative and affirmative sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 163–​174.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., & Fein, O. (2014). Resonating with default nonsalient interpretations: A corpus-​based
study of negative sarcasm. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 28, 3–​18.
Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. (2015). Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of
nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 173–​200.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P. (2010). Negation as a metaphor-​inducing operator. In L. Horn (Ed.),
The expression of negation (pp. 225–​256). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Becker, I. (2020). How defaultness affects text production. Resonating with default
interpretations and negative sarcasm. In A. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp.
66–​77). Berlin/​Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol,
30(4), 290–​313.
Giora, R., Heruti, V., Metuki, N., & Fein, O. (2009). “When we say no we mean no”: Interpreting negation in
vision and language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2222–​2239.
Giora, R., Jaffe, I., Becker, I., & Fein, O. (2018). Strongly mitigating a highly positive concept: The case of
default sarcastic interpretations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 19–​47.

41
 References

Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I. (2013). Negation generates nonliteral inter-
pretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–​115.
Givoni, S., & Giora, R. (2018). Salience and defaultness. In F. Liedtke & A. Tuchen (Eds.), Handbuch
Pragmatik (pp. 207–​213). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Givoni, S., Giora, R., & Bergerbest, D. (2013). How speakers alert addressees to multiple meanings. Journal
of Pragmatics, 48(1), 29–​40.
Goldberg, E. A. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
7(5), 219–​224.
Goldberg, E. A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics
(Vol. 3, pp. 41–​58). New York: Academic Press.
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive
Psychology, 9, 353–​383.
Navon, D. (1981). The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychological Research, 43, 1–​32.
Partington, A. (2011). Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1786–​1800.
Veale, T. (2013). Humorous similes. Humor, 26(1), 3–​22.
Woodland, J., & Voyer, D. (2011). Context and intonation in the perception of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol,
26, 227–​239.
Ackerman, J., Nocera, C. C., & Bargh, J. A. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and
decisions. Science, 328, 1712–​1715.
Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Bergen, B. (2019). Embodiment. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations of
language (pp. 11–​35). Berlin/​Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Listening to action-​
related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study.
Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 355–​363.
Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory and
Cognition, 36, 1047–​1056.
Casasanto, D., & Dijkstra, K. (2010). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition, 115, 179–​185.
Chatterjee, A. (2010). Disembodying cognition. Language and Cognition, 2, 79–​116.
Citron, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal
counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–​2595.
Clarke, C., & Lemon, R. (2016). Nervous system structure and function. In C. Clarke, R. Howard, M. Rossor,
& S. Shorvon (Eds.), Neurology: A Queen Square textbook (pp. 11–​67). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (1993). Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differently distributed neural systems.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90, 4957–​4960.
Desai, R., Binder, J., Conant, L., Mano, Q., & Seidenberg, M. (2011). The neural career of sensory-​motor
metaphors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2376–​2386.
Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110, 412–​431.
Dove, G. (2011). On the need for embodied and dis-​embodied cognition. Frontiers in Cognition, 1, 1–​13.
Dove, G. (2016). Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cogni-
tion. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 1109–​1121.
Evans, V. (2019). Cognitive Linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fischer, K. 2006. What computer talk is and isn’t. Saarbrücken: AQ-​Verlag.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2017). Embodiment. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics
(pp. 449–​462). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
9(3), 558–​565.
Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., & Cattaneo, L. (2008). Use-​induced motor plasticity affects the processing of
abstract and concrete language. Current Biology, 18, R290–​R291.
Goldberg, R. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Schneider, W. (2006a). Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory
brain regions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(18), 4917–​4921.
Goldberg, R. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Schneider, W. (2006b) Distinct and common cortical activations for multi-
modal semantic categories. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(3), 214–​222.
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. PhD dissertation.
Berkeley: University of California.
Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Conceptual blending and metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Metaphor
in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101–​124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

42
 References

Hampe, B., & Grady, J. (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hanna, R., & Maiese, M. (2009). Embodied minds in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. (2014). The body in language: Observations from grammaticalization. In M. Brenzinger & I. Kraska-​
Szlenk (Eds.), The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment (pp. 13–​32). Leiden/​
Boston: Brill.
Hockema, S. A., & Smith, L. B. (2009). Learning your language, outside-​in and inside-​out. Linguistics, 2,
453–​479.
IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2009). The thermometer of social relations: Mapping social proximity on tem-
perature. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1214–​1220.
Isenberg, N., Silbersweig, D., Engelien, A., Emmerich, S., Malavade, K., Beattie, B., Leon, A. C., & Stern,
E. (1999). Threat activates the human amygdala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 18, 10456–​10459.
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological
Science, 16(5), 367–​371.
Jiang, C., & Kuang, F. (2019). Motivating construction use: A sociocognitive perspective. Modern Foreign
Languages, 3, 328–​338.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago/​
London: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lacey, S., Stilla, R., & Sathian, K. (2012). Metaphorically feeling: Comprehending textural metaphors activates
somatosensory cortex. Brain and Language, 120, 416–​421.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/​
London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-​schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1, 39–​74.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.)
(pp. 202–​251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1994). What is a conceptual system? In W. F. Overton & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), The nature and
ontogenesis of meaning (pp. 41–​90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/​London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 2): Descriptive application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Lee, S. W., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Bidirectionality, mediation, and moderation of metaphorical effects: The
embodiment of social suspicion and fishy smells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5),
737–​749.
Lin, C. Y., & Depner, S. C. (2016). Food metaphors in Taiwan Hakka. In S. C. Depner (Ed.), Embodiment in
language (II): Food, emotion and beyond (pp. 7–​20). Singapore: Springer.
Lindblom, J. (2015). Embodied social cognition. New York/​London: Springer.
Maalej, Z. A., & Yu, N. (Eds.). (2011). Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and
cultures. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 30,
420–​429.
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new pro-
posal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, 102, 59–​70.
Maouene, J., Hidaka, S., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Body parts and early-​learned verbs. Cognitive Science, 32,
1200–​1216.
Maouene, J. C., Sethuraman, N., Maouene, M. M., & Otieno, S. (2016). Contingencies between verbs, body
parts, and argument structures in maternal and child speech: A corpus study. Language and Cognition, 8,
237–​282.

43
 References

Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor and lan-
guage systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 793–​797.
Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and experientialism. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of cognitive linguistics (pp. 25–​47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt-​Snoek, G. L., Drew, A. R., Barile, E. C., & Agauas, S. J. (2015). Auditory and motion metaphors have
different scalp distributions: An ERP study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 126.
Shapiro, K. A., Pascual-​Leone, A., Mottaghy, F. M., Gangitano, M., & Caramazza, A. (2001). Grammatical
distinctions in the left frontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 713–​720.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications.
Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2008). Culture, body, and language: Conceptualization
of heart and other internal body organs across languages and cultures. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Sinha, C., & Jensen de López, K. (2000). Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive
Linguistics, 11(1), 17–​41.
Smith, L. B. (2003). Using space to bind words to objects. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 60–​61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on pic-
ture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–​156.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–​100.
Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., Fazio, F., Rizzolatti, G.,
Cappa, S. F., & Perani, D. (2005). Listening to action-​related sentences activates fronto-​parietal motor
circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 273–​281.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiskopf, D. (2007). Concept empiricism and the vehicles of thought. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14,
156–​183.
Wilkowski, B. M., Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Carter, M. S., & Feltman, R. (2009). “Hotheaded” is more
than an expression: The embodied representation of anger in terms of heat. Emotion, 9(4), 464–​477.
Williams, L., & Bargh, J. (2008). Experiencing physical warm influences interpersonal warmth. Science, 322,
606–​607.
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehen-
sion. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–​731.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Yu, N. (2008). The Chinese heart as the central faculty of cognition. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S.
Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures
and languages (pp. 131–​168). Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2009). The Chinese HEART in a cognitive perspective. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2014). LIFE AS OPERA: A cultural metaphor in Chinese. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in cultural
linguistics (pp. 65–​87). Singapore: Springer.
Zhang, Y., Wang, K., Yue, C., Mo, N., Wu, D., Wen, X., & Qiu, J. (2018). The motor features of action
verbs: fMRI evidence using picture naming. Brain and Language, 179, 22–​32.
Zhong, C., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing.
Science, 313, 1451–​1452.
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehen-
sion. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44) (pp. 35–​62). New York:
Academic Press.
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes
of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–​171.
Anderson, M. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–​130.
Asikhia, O. K., & Setchi, R. (2018). Evaluating the affective aspect of intuitive interactions using image
schemas. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 18(4), 6–​41.
Baltzer, M. C. A., López, D., & Flemisch, F. (2019). Towards an interaction pattern language for human
machine cooperation and cooperative movement. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21, 593–​606.

44
 References

Britton, A., Setchi, R., & Marsh, A. (2013). Intuitive interaction with multi-​ functional mobile interfaces.
Journal of King Saud University-​Computer and Information Sciences, 25(2), 187–​196.
Brugman, C. (1981). Story of over. Berkeley: University of California.
Cienki, A. (1997). Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. Sweetser
(Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 3–​15). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cienki, A. (1998). Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2),
107–​149.
Cienki, A. (2005). Image schemas and gesture. In B. Hampe & J. Grady (Eds.), From perception to
meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–​442). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image-​schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–​31.
Correa-​Beningfield, M., Kristansen, G., Navarro-​Ferrando, I., & Vandeloise, C. (2005). Image schemas vs.
complex primitives in cross-​cultural spatial cognition. In B. Hampe & J. Grady (Eds.), From perception
to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 343–​368). Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Crits-​Christoph, P., Gibbons, M. B. C., & Mukherjee, D. (2013). Psychotherapy process-​outcome research. In
M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th ed.) (pp.
298–​340). New York: Wiley.
D’Andrade, R. G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Deligiannis, A. (2018). Imagining with the body in analytical psychology. Movement as active imagination: An
interdisciplinary perspective from philosophy and neuroscience. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 63(2),
166–​185.
Ekberg, L. (1995). The mental manipulation of the vertical axis: How to go from “up” to “out” or from “above”
to “behind.” In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and
the construction of meaning (pp. 69–​88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Feldman, G. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frank, R. M. (2008). Introduction: Sociocultural situatedness. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E.
Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 1–​18). Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Freeman, D. C. (1995). “Catch[ing] the nearest way”: Macbeth and cognitive metaphor. Journal of Pragmatics,
24(6), 689–​708.
Gallagher, S. (2006). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D., & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns.
In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 153–​180).
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their trans-
formations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 347–​378.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2006). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their
transformations. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 239–​268). Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W., & Perlman, M. (2006). The contested impact of cognitive linguistic research on the psy-
cholinguistics of metaphor understanding. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & R. de Mendoza
(Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 211–​228). Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Berkeley: University of
California.
Hampe, B., & Grady, J. (Eds.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haser, V. (2003). Metaphor in semantic change. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the cross-
roads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 171–​194). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haser, V. (2005). Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hurtienne, J., Klöckner, K., Diefenbach, S., Nass, C., & Maier, A. (2015). Designing with image
schemas: Resolving the tension between innovation, inclusion and intuitive use. Interacting with Computers,
27(3), 235–​255.
Hurtienne, J., Weber, K., & Blessing, L. (2008). Prior experience and intuitive use: Image schemas in user-​
centred design. In P. Langdon, P. J. Clarkson, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing inclusive futures (pp. 107–​
116). London: Springer.

45
 References

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kant, I. (1990). Critique of pure reason. Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-​based models of
language (pp. vii–​xxviii). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kennedy, J. M., & Vervaeke, J. (1993). Metaphor and knowledge attained via the body. Philosophical
Psychology, 6(4), 407–​412.
Kimmel, M. (2005). Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From per-
ception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 285–​312). Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Knox, J. M. (2001). Memories, fantasies, archetypes: An exploration of some connections between cognitive
science and analytical psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 46, 613–​635.
Kopp, R. R., & Craw, M. J. (1998). Metaphoric language, metaphoric cognition, and cognitive therapy.
Psychotherapy, 35(3), 306–​311.
Kövecses, Z. (2000). The concept of anger: Universal or culture specific? Psychopathology, 33(4), 159–​170.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kuhn, W., & Frank, A. U. (1991). A formalization of metaphors and image schema in user interfaces. In D.
M. Mark & A. U. Frank (Eds.), Cognitive and linguistic aspects of geographical space (pp. 419–​434).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-​ schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1(1), 39–​74.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.)
(pp. 202–​251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–​14.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to western
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathem-
atics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites). Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization: Cognitive linguistics research. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Mandler, J. M., & Cánovas, C. P. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4),
510–​532.
Matsumoto, Y. (1995). From attribution/​purpose to cause: Image schema and grammaticalization of some
cause markers in Japanese. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical
constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 287–​307). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical
adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46(3), 229–​259.
McMullen, L. M. (2008). Putting it in context: Metaphor and psychotherapy. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 397–​411). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merchant, J. (2016). The image schema and innate archetypes: Theoretical and clinical implications. Journal
of Analytical Psychology, 61(1), 63–​78.
Mittelberg, I. (2018). Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic systems approach augmented
with motion-​capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1), 1–​21.
Narayanan, S. (1997). Talking the talk is like walking the walk: A computational model of verbal aspect. In M.
G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society (pp. 548–​553). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

46
 References

Narayanan, S. (1999). Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In
Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-​99) (pp. 121–​127). Menlo Park,
CA: AAAI Press.
Norcross, J. C. (1990). An eclectic definition of psychotherapy. In J. K. Zeig & W. M. Munion (Eds.), What is
psychotherapy? Contemporary perspectives (pp. 218–​220). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-​Bass.
Oakley, T. (2005). Force dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception
to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 443–​473). Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 214–​235). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Pan, X. M. (2019). The effectiveness of the conceptual metaphor approach to English idiom acquisition by
young Chinese learners. Metaphor and the Social World, 9(1), 59–​82.
Plug, L., Sharrack, B., & Reuber, M. (2009). Seizure metaphors differ in patients’ accounts of epileptic and
psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Epilepsia, 50(5), 994–​1000.
Rhee, S. (2002). Semantic changes of English prepositions against a grammaticalization perspective. Language
Research, 38(2), 563–​583.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemas: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F.
Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives in cognitive psychology (pp.
33–​58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Semino, E., & Culpeper, J. (2002). Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sims, P. A., & Whynot, C. A. (1997). Hearing metaphor: An approach to working with family-​generated meta-
phor. Family Process, 36(4), 341–​355.
Sinha, C., & Jensen de López, K. (2000). Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive
Linguistics, 11(1), 17–​41.
Smith, M. B. (2002). The polysemy of German es: Iconicity and the notion of conceptual distance. Cognitive
Linguistics, 13(1), 67–​112.
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Sweetser, E. E. (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual
Meeting (pp. 389–​405). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–​100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tay, D. (2013). Metaphor in psychotherapy. A descriptive and prescriptive analysis. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tay, D. (2014). Bodily experience as both source and target of meaning making: Implications from metaphors
in psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 84–​100.
Tay, D. (2016). Metaphor and psychological transference. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(1), 11–​30.
Tay, D. (2017). Exploring the metaphor–​body–​psychotherapy relationship. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(3),
178–​191.
Tay, D., & Jordan, J. (2015). Metaphor and the notion of control in trauma talk. Text & Talk, 35(4), 553–​573.
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.),
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–​488). New York and
London: Routledge.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–​184.
Wang, B. P.-​Y., & Su, I. L. (2015). On the principled polysemy of -​kai in Chinese resultative verbs. Chinese
Language and Discourse, 6(1), 2–​27.
Watters, J. K. (1995). Frames and the semantics of applicatives in Tepehua. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive lin-
guistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 971–​996). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 1–​11).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Yu, Y., & Tay, D. (2020). A mixed-​method analysis of image-​schematic metaphors in describing anger, anxiety,
and depression. Metaphor and the Social World, 10(2), 253–​272.
Zlatev, J. (2007). Embodiment, language, and mimesis. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, & R. M. Frank (Eds.), Body,
language and mind. Vol. 1: Embodiment (pp. 297–​338). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Ulric
Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization
(pp. 101–​40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47
 References

Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frames Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm
(pp. 111–​122). Seoul: Hanshin.
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics, 27, 587–​612.
Głaz, A. (2010). Towards extended vantage theory. Language Sciences, 32, 259–​275.
Głaz, A. (2013). Vantage theory as a model of categorization. In Adam Głaz et al. (Eds.), Vantage theory: A view
on language, cognition and categorization (pp. 249–​292). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar.
Language, 60(4), 703–​752.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. Bailey & R. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of
analysing variation in English (pp. 340–​373). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
MacLaury, R. E. (2013). Vantage theory in outline. In Adam Głaz et al. (Eds.), Vantage theory: A view on lan-
guage, cognition and categorization (pp. 66–​136). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Quirk, R., et al. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman Group
Limited.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principle of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization
(pp. 27–​48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shen, Jiaxuan. (2016). Nouns and verbs. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Shen, Jiaxuan. (2017). Western and Chinese views of categories seen from a linguistic perspective. Social
Sciences in China, 7, 131–​143.
Shen, Jiaxuan. (2018). Negative transfer of Chinese nominalism in learning English as a second language.
Foreign Language and Literature Studies, 35(1), 4–​22.
Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Pearson
Education Limited.
Wen, X. (2014). Cognitive foundations of language. Beijing: Science Press.
Wen, X., & Xiao, K. (2019). Cognitive translatology. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Wu, Tieping. (1999). Fuzzy linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Zhu, Dexi. (1985). On grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time.
Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–​22.
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science,
13(2), 185–​189.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right and left handers. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–​367.
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook
of metaphor and thought (pp. 483–​501). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension and the brain. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
metaphor and thought (pp. 177–​194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
David, O., Lakoff, G., & Stickles, E. (2016). Cascades in metaphor and grammar. Constructions and Frames,
8(2), 214–​255.
Deignan, A. (1995). Collins Cobuild English Guides 7: Metaphor. London: HarperCollins.
Deignan, A. (2003). Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4),
255–​271.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
El Refaie, E. (2019). Visual metaphor and embodiment in graphic illness narratives. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.

48
 References

Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Forceville, C. (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462–​482). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C. (2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N.-​M. Klug & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch
Sprache im multimodalen Kontext (pp. 241–​260). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–​4), 455–​479.
Geeraerts, D., & Grondelaers, S. (1995). Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns.
In J. Taylor & R. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 153–​179).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gelfand, M., & McCusker, C. (2001). Culture, metaphor and negotiation. Handbook of cross-​cultural manage-
ment (pp. 292–​314). New York: Blackwell Publishers.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs &
G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–​166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Cameron, L. (2008). The social-​cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive
Systems Research, 9, 64–​75.
Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain. Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grady, J. (1997a). theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–​290.
Grady, J. (1997b). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Doctoral dissertation,
Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (1988). The language of love. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. New York and Berlin: Springer-​Verlag.
Kövecses, Z. (1995). Anger: Its language, conceptualization, and physiology. In J. Taylor & R. MacLaury
(Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 181–​196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. (2000a). Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2000b). American English. An introduction. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2002/​2010). Metaphor. A practical introduction (2nd ed. 2010). Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics,
21(4), 663–​697.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Conceptual metaphor theory. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook
of metaphor and language (1st ed.) (pp. 13–​27). London: Routledge.
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–​
251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics. How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor
(pp. 17–​38). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland
& N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–​221). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2002). Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

49
 References

Maalej, Z., & Yu, N. (Eds). (2011). Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in discourse about Europe.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–​38.
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor—​a case frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony
(Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–​324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sullivan, K. (2016). Integrating constructional semantics and conceptual metaphor. Constructions and Frames,
8(2), 141–​165.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R., & MacLaury, R. (Eds). (1995). Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Taylor, J., & Mbense, T. (1998). Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk about anger. In A. Athanasiadou
& E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions (pp. 191–​226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor in Chinese: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Yu, N. (2002). Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. Pragmatics & Cognition,
10(1), 341–​367.
Barcelona, A. (2018). General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular
attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. In O. Blanco Carrión, A.
Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy. Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
(pp. 27–​54). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000a). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2000b). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In
A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–​58). Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics,
21(1), 1–​34.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in Cognitive
Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield and Bristol: Equinox.
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word formation. Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-​Szabó, R. (2003). Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and
Hungarian. In K.-​U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 241–​266).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-​Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive
science (pp. 411–​420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L.
Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–​63). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics,
4, 335–​370.
Dik, S. C. (1997). [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the
clause. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1993) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense
Bijdragen, 8(2), 1–​25.
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E.
Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to applica-
tion and back (pp. 13–​70). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

50
 References

Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K.-​U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in
language and thought (pp. 61–​76). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. (2007). Experiential tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-​M. Köpcke, T. Berg,
& P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 19–​32). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic
action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–​340.
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W.
Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–​100). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jing-​Schmidt, Z. (2008). Much mouth much tongue: Chinese metonymies and metaphors of verbal behavior.
Cognitive Linguistics, 19(2), 241–​282.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2013). The metaphor–​metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy.
Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75–​88.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,
9, 37–​77.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.)
(pp. 202–​251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2009). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor
and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-​point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–​38.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Michl, D. (2019). Metonymies are more literal than metaphors: Evidence from ratings of German idioms.
Language and Cognition, 11(1), 98–​124.
Miró, I. (2018). Combining metaphors: From metaphoric amalgams to binary systems. Australian Journal of
Linguistics, 38(1), 81–​104.
Panther, K.-​U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza &
S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–​386).
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.-​U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999a). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-​U., & Radden, G. (1999b). Introduction. In K.-​U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in lan-
guage and thought (pp. 1–​16). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-​U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics, 30, 755–​769.
Panther, K.-​U., & Thornburg, L. (2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco Carrión, A.
Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy.Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
(pp. 121–​160). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K-​U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997). Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa,
6(2), 161–​178.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona
(Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–​132). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

51
 References

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz
de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–​123).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explan-
ation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to
Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–​166). London: Bloomsbury.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From bas-
icity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–​159).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational
patterns. Language and Communication, 71, 16–​38.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings
(Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–​532). Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2004). Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden & K.-​
U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 293–​320). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Miró, I. (2019). On the cognitive grounding of agent-​deprofiling constructions as a
case of pretense constructions. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 32(2), 572–​588.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada: Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, S. (2008). Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English
and Spanish. In M. Á. Gómez-​González, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. González-​Álvarez (Eds.), Current
trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 251–​280). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and inter-
action. Language and Communication, 21, 321–​357.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-​U. Panther &
L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–​49). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and
challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–​185.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.-​U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In N.-​A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh
(Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–​219). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Boogaert, R., & Fortuin, E. (2016). Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars.
In J. Nuyts & J. Van der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 514–​534).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boye, K. (2005). Modality and the concept of force-​dynamic potential. In A. Klinge & H. H. Müller (Eds.),
Modality: Studies in form and function (pp. 49–​80). London: Equinox.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the
languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Copley, B. (2019). Force Dynamics. In R. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of event structure (pp. 137–​
170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deane, P. D. (1996). On Jackendoff’s conceptual semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 35–​91.
De Mulder, W. (2007). Force dynamics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cog-
nitive linguistics (pp. 294–​316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Fortuin, E. (2005). From possibility to necessity: The semantic spectrum of the dative-​infinitive construction in
Russian. In B. Hansen & P. Karlik (Eds.), Modality in Slavonic languages: New perspectives (pp. 39–​60).
München: Otto Sagner.
Furmaniak, G. (2011). On the emergence of the epistemic use of must. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 24,
41–​73.
Goldschmidt, A. (2018). Hitting playfully but hard: Conceptual effects of verb-​adverb modification in the
domain of force. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht, LOT Publications n° 505.
Goossens, L. (2000). Patterns of meaning extension, “parallel chaining”, subjectification, and modal shifts.
In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 149–​170).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

52
 References

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keller, R. (2018). Zeichentheorie. Zu einer Theorie semiotischen Wissens (2nd ed.). Tübingen/​Basel: Francke.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lampert, G., & Lampert, M. (2000). The conceptual structure(s) of modality: Essences and ideologies. A study
in linguistic (meta-​)categorization. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
Lampert, M., & Lampert, G. (2013). … the ball seemed to keep rolling … Linking up cognitive systems in lan-
guage: Attention and force dynamics. Bern: Peter Lang.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Settings, participants, and grammatical relations. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings
and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 213–​238). London: Routledge.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Lichtenberg, B. R. (2018). Force dynamicity in language: A comparison of a selection of force theoretic
frameworks. LingUU Journal, 2(2), 56–​64.
Mandler, J., & Cánovas, P. C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 1–​23.
Mortelmans, T. (2007). Modality in cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 869–​889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-​linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pelyvás, P. (1996). Subjectivity in English: Generative grammar versus the cognitive theory of epistemic
grounding. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
Pelyvás, P. (2000). Metaphorical extension of may and must into the epistemic domain. In A. Barcelona (Ed.),
Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 233–​250). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sweetser, E. (1984). Semantic structure and semantic change: A cognitive linguistic study of modality, percep-
tion, speech acts, and logical relations. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic causative types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 6: The grammar
of causative constructions (pp. 43–​116). New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L. (1981). Force dynamics. Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Mental Imagery,
University of California, Berkeley, May 1981.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation.
Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–​282). New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. H. Eikfont, P. D. Kroeber, & K. L. Peterson
(Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on causatives and agentivity at the Twenty-​First Regional Meeting
of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 293–​337). CLS Publications, vol. 21, pt. 2. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–​100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2003). The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In K. Emmorey (Ed.),
Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 169–​195). London: Psychology Press.
Talmy, L. (2006). A windowing onto conceptual structure and language. Part 2: Language and cognition: Past
and future (interview with Iraide Ibarretxe-​Antuñano). In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Ed.), Annual
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 253–​268.
Talmy, L. (2011). Cognitive semantics: An overview. In C. Maienborn et al. (Eds.), Semantics: An inter-
national handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 1 (pp. 622–​642). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, L. (2018). Ten lectures on Cognitive Semantics. Leiden: Brill.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic
change. Language, 65(1), 31–​55.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
van der Auwera, J., & Ammann, A. (2005). Overlap between situational and epistemic modal marking. In M.
Dryer, D. Gil, M. Haspelmath, & B. Comrie (Eds.), World atlas of language structures (pp. 310–​313).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warner, A. R. (1993). English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter, S., & Gärdenfors, P. (1995). Linguistic modality as expressions of social power. Nordic Journal of
Linguistics, 18(2), 137–​165.

53
 References

Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 82–​111.
Wolff, P., & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology,
47(3), 276–​332.
Croft, W., & Alan, C. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V., & Melanie, G. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1985) Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes-​and-​frames. In A. Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–​81).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: North Holland.
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm
(pp. 111–​138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Geeraerts, D., & Hubert, C. (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hamawand, Z. (2002). Atemporal complement clauses in English: A cognitive grammar analysis. München:
Lincom.
Hamawand, Z. (2007). Suffixal rivalry in adjective formation. A cognitive-​corpus analysis. London:
Equinox.
Hamawand, Z. (2008). Morpho-​lexical alternation in noun formation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamawand, Z. (2009). The semantics of English negative prefixes. London: Equinox.
Hamawand, Z. (2011). Morphology in English. Word formation in cognitive grammar. London: Continuum.
Hamawand, Z. (2012). The pronoun it: A study in cognitive grammar. International Journal of Cognitive
Linguistics, 11(2). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Hamawand, Z. (2016). Semantics: A cognitive account of linguistic meaning. Sheffield: Equinox.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, M. (1987) The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1, 39–​74.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A view of linguistic semantics. In B. Rudzka-​Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 49–​90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991b). Concept, image and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71, 1–​62.
Langacker, R. W. (1997). The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.),
Language and conceptualisation (pp. 229–​232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick and L. Arcedolo (Eds.), Spatial orienta-
tion: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–​282). New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, J., & MacLaury, R. E (Eds.). (1995). Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-​J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Pearson
Education.
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brunyé, T. T., Gardony, A., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2012). Body-​specific representations of spatial
location. Cognition, 23(2), 229–​239.
Citron, F. M. M., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Conventional metaphors in longer
passages evoke an affective fMRI response. NeuroImage, 139, 218–​230.
Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S., & Patten, V. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-​related potential study.
Memory and Cognition, 30(6), 958–​968.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dirven, R. (1994). Metaphor and nation: Metaphors Afrikaners live by. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

54
 References

Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V. (2015). The crucible of language: How language and mind create meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Evans, V. (2019). Cognitive Linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evens, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Frank, R. M., Dirven, R., Ziemke, T., & Bernárdez, E. (2008). Body, language and mind. Vol. II: Sociocultural
situatedness. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Geiger, R. A., & Rudzka-​Ostyn, B. (1993). Conceptualizations and mental processing in language. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Gijssels, T., & Casasanto, D. (2017). Conceptualizing time in terms of space: Experimental evidence. In B.
Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 651–​668). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/​
London: University of Chicago Press.
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in mind and society: A functional contribution to the social turn in Cognitive
Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Janda, L. A. (2013). Cognitive Linguistics: The quantitative turn. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Janda, L. A. (2017). The quantitative turn. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 496–​514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, D. (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social
systems. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/​London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. Chicago/​London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts: Core readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2019). Concepts. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
(Summer 2019 ed.). https://​plato.stanford.edu/​archives/​sum2019/​entries/​concepts/​.
Marín-​Arrese, J. I. (2007). Dirk Geeraerts: Cognitive sociolinguistics and the sociology of Cognitive
Linguistics. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 289–​305.
Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N. (2010). Moving through time. Psychological Science, 21(2), 222–​223.
Nuyts, J., & Pederson, E. (1997). Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., & Reif, M. (2014). Cognitive sociolinguistics: Social and cultural variation in cog-
nition and language use. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Advances in cultural linguistics. Singapore: Springer.
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. 2008. Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of
internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, F., & Palmer, G. B. (2007). Applied cultural linguistics: Implications for second language learning
and intercultural communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wen, X. (2019). Sociocognitive Linguistics based on social cognition. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 239–​305.
Wen, X., & Yang, K. (2016). Systematicity and complexity of IDEA metaphors in Chinese. Metaphor and
Symbol, 31(4), 230–​249.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

55
 References

Zhang, W. (2016). Variation in metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Abbott, D. (2004). Derek Abbott’s animal noise page. Online. www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/​personal/​dabbott/​
animal.html
Akita, K., & Dingemanse, M. (2019). Ideophones (mimetics, expressives). In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford
research encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 1–​18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aoki, H. (1994). Symbolism in Nez Perce. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp.
15–​22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Behaghel, O. (1932). Deutsche syntax: Eine geschichtliche darstellung. Band 4: Wortstellung, periodenbau.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Benczes, R. (2019). Rhyme over reason: Phonological motivation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–​311.
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Sound-​meaning
association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 113(39), 10818–​10823.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Bolinger, D. (1940). Word affinities. American Speech, 15(1), 62–​73.
Bolinger, D. (1950). Rime, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word, 6(2), 117–​136.
Bolinger, D. (1967). Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 1–​34.
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language: The loaded weapon. London and New York: Longman.
Bolinger, D. (1985). The inherent iconism of intonation. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 97–​108).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bolinger, D., & Sears, D. A. (1975). Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cassidy, K., Kelly, M., & Sharoni, L. (1999). Inferring gender from name phonology. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 128(3), 362–​381.
Chandler, D. (1994–​2020). Signs. In Semiotics for beginners. http://​visual-​memory.co.uk/​daniel/​Documents/​
S4B/​
Chandler, D. (2007/​2002). Semiotics: The basics (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of after and before. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 10, 266–​275.
Cooper, W. E., & Klouda, G. V. (1995). The psychological basis of syntactic iconicity. In M. E. Landsberg
(Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension (pp. 331–​341). Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, & T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers
from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–​111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Diessel, H. (2008). Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-​based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial
clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(3), 465–​490.
Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-​linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 6(10), 654–​672.
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, icon-
icity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–​615.
Doke, C. M. (1935). Bantu linguistic terminology. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Fox, B. (1981). Body-​part syntax: Toward a universal characterization. Studies in Language, 5, 323–​342.
Givón, T. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-​arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in
syntax (pp. 187–​219). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1991). Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in
Language, 15(1), 85–​114.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech
acts (pp. 41–​58). New York: Academic Press.
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59(4), 781–​819.
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hammerström, H. (2015). The basic word order typology: An exhaustive study. Leipzig. www.eva.mpg.de/​
fileadmin/​content_​files/​linguistics/​conferences/​2015-​diversity-​linguistics/​Hammarstroem_​slides.pdf
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics,
19(1), 1–​33.
Haviland, J. B. (1998). Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions. Ethos, 26(1), 25–​47. https://​pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/​5cc7/​a1d348c29a866a9b0cba99dea91a3a1fe986.pdf

56
 References

Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. (1994). Introduction: Sound symbolic processes. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols,
& J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 1–​12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hiraga, M. K. (1994). Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects of language. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 5–​21.
Imai, M., & Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and lan-
guage evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130298.
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning.
Cognition, 109, 54–​65.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–​385).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jakobson, R. (1965). Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes, 51, 21–​37. Reprinted in R. Jakobson (1971),
Selected writings II: Word and language (pp. 345–​359). The Hague: Mouton.
Kawahara, S., Kasuko, S., & Grady, J. (2015). Iconic inferences about personality from sounds and shapes.
In M. K. Hiraga, W. J. Herlofsky, K. Shinohara, & K. Akita (Eds.), Iconicity: East meets west (pp. 57–​69).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Köhler, W. (1933). Psychologische probleme. Berlin: Springer.
Laing, C. E. (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language, 34(5),
387–​405.
Laing, C. E. (2017). A perceptual advantage for onomatopoeia in early word learning: Evidence from eye-​
tracking. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 161, 32–​45.
Laing, C. E. (2019). A role for onomatopoeia in early language: Evidence from phonological development.
Language and Cognition, 11, 173–​187.
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics
Society (pp. 236–​287). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction,
VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive applications. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lavner, F. (2016). Off the top of Fred’s head. Morrisville: Lulu Press.
Linde, Ch., & Labov, W. (1975). Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language,
51(4), 924–​939.
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-​day English word-​formation: A synchronic and dia-
chronic approach. München: Beck.
Marttila, A. (2011). A cross-​ linguistic study of lexical iconicity and its manifestation in bird names.
München: Lincom.
McCormick, K., Young, J. Y., List, S., & Nygaard, L. (2015). Sound to meaning mappings in the bouba-​kiki
effect. https://​cogsci.mindmodeling.org/​2015/​papers/​0273/​paper0273.pdf
Metzger, W. (2006). Laws of seeing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; translated from Gesetze des Sehens by
L. Spillmann, M. Wertheimer, & S. Lehar (1936).
Müller, W. G. (2000). Iconicity and rhetoric: A note on the iconic force of rhetorical figures in Shakespeare. In
O. Fischer & M. Nänny (Eds.), The motivated sign: Iconicity in language and literature 2 (pp. 305–​322).
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nänny, M., & Fischer, O. (1999). Introduction: Veni, vidi, vici. In O. Fischer & M. Nänny (Eds.), The motivated
sign: Iconicity in language and literature 2 (pp. 1–​14). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nobile, L. (2015). Phonemes as images: An experimental inquiry into shape-​sound symbolism applied to
the distinctive features of French. In M. K. Hiraga, W. J. Herlofsky, K. Shinohara, & K. Akita (Eds.),
Iconicity: East meets west (pp. 71–​91). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Occhino, C., Anible, B. Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How
language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture, 16(1), 100–​126.
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. Horizon, 13(76): 252–​265. www.orwell.ru/​library/​
essays/​politics/​english/​e_​polit/​
Panther, K.-​U. (in print). Potential and communicative force in caused-​motion constructions: What they entail
and what they implicate.
Peirce, C. C. (1931–​1958). Collected writings (8 vols.). Eds. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. W. Burks.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pharies, D. A. (1985). Charles C. Peirce and the linguistic sign. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

57
 References

Posner, R. (1986). Iconicity in syntax: The natural order of attributes. In P. Bouissac, M. Herzfeld, & R. Posner
(Eds.), Iconicity: Essays on the nature of culture: Festschrift for Thomas A. Sebeok on his 65th birthday
(pp. 305–​373). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Matthis, E. (2002). Why similar to, but different from? In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.),
Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 231–​255). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Rhodes, R. (1994). Aural images. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 276–​
292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadowski, P. (2000). The sound as an echo to the sense: The iconicity of English gl-​ words. In O. Fischer &
M. Nänny (Eds.), The motivated sign: Iconicity in language and literature 2 (pp. 69–​88). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Saussure, F. de. ([1916] 2011). Course in general linguistics. Translated by W. Baskin, edited by P. Meisel &
H. Saussy. New York, Toronto and London: McGraw-​Hill.
Tai, J. H.-​Y. (1985). Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.
49–​72). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American sign language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (2004). The ecology of constructions. In G. Radden & K.-​U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic
motivation (pp. 49–​73). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thompson, S. A., & Koide, Y. (1987). Iconicity and ‘indirect objects’ in English. Journal of Pragmatics,
11(3): 399–​406.
Ullmann, S. (1972). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology.
New York and London: Plenum Press.
Waugh, L. R. (1993). Against arbitrariness: Imitation and motivation revived, with consequences for textual
meaning. Diacritics, 22(2): 71–​87.
Waugh, L. R. (1994). Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 55–​70.
Wierzbicka, A. (1975). Why “kill” does not mean “cause to die”: The semantics of action sentences. Foundations
of Language, 13(4): 491–​528.
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnaud, A., & Lancelot, C. (1660). Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Pierre le Petit. https://​gallica.bnf.
fr/​ark:/​12148/​bpt6k50416g
Au, E., Wan, W., & Chiu, C. (2013). The social and cultural context of cognition: A knowledge perspective.
In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 158–​172).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ball, M. J., & Müller, N. (2010). The Celtic languages. London: Routledge.
Barber, C., Beal, J. C., & Shaw, P. H. (2009). The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge
University Press.
Bolinger, D. L. (1949). The sign is not arbitrary. Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo (= Thesaurus), 5, 52–​62.
Buchler, J. (Ed.). (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Books.
Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossmann, L. J. San, & T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers
from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63–​111). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. M., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, icon-
icity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(10), 603–​615. http://​dx.doi.org/​org/​
10.1016/​j.tics.2015.07.013
Dirven, R., Franck, R., & Pütz, M. (Eds.). (2003). Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideology,
metaphors and meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Friedrich, P. (2006). Maximizing ethnopoetics: Fine-​tuning anthropological experience. In C. Jourdan &
K. Tuite (Eds.), Language, culture, and society: Key topics in linguistic anthropology (pp. 207–​228).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction (Vols. 1–​2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–​58).
New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

58
 References

Hewson, J. (1990). Un système où tout se tient: Origin and evolution of an idea. In H.-​J. Niederehe & E.
F. K. Koerner (Eds.), History and historiography of linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 787–​794). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hiraga, M. K. (2005). Metaphor and iconicity: A cognitive approach to analyzing texts. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hogg, R. M., & Fulk, R. D. (2011). A grammar of Old English. Vol 2: Morphology. Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell.
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-​and R-​based implicature. In D. Schiffrin
(Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 11–​42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1965). Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes, 13(51), 21–​37.
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.
Kowalewski, H. (2015). Against arbitrariness: An alternative approach towards motivation of the sign. Public
Journal of Semiotics, 6(2), 14–​31. https://​doi.org/​10.37693/​pjos.2015.6.15179
Kreitler, S. (2013). Introduction. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary
perspective (pp. 1–​11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff. G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. (2011). Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In K.-​U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.),
Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (Human Cognitive Processing 27) (pp. 29–​47). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lehmann, C. (2007). Motivation: Attempt at a systematization. In P. Gallmann, C. Lehmann, & R. Lühr (Eds.),
Sprachliche Variation: Zur Interdependenz von Inhalt und Ausdruck (pp. 100–​135). Tübingen: G. Narr.
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning (pp. 90–​115).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lincoln, A. (1863). Gettysburg address. Primary documents in American history. web guides: Virtual services
digital reference section. http://​loc.gov/​rr/​program/​bib/​ourdocs/​Gettysburg.html
Littlemore, J. (2019). Metaphors in the mind: Sources of variation in embodied metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. www.gutenberg.org/​ebooks/​10615, www.guten-
berg.org/​ebooks/​10616
Lodge, A. (1998). Is French a logical language? In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp. 23–​31).
London: Penguin Books.
Martinet, A. (1980). Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Arman Colin.
Menninger, K. (1969). Number words and number systems: A cultural history of numbers. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Merrell, F. (2001). Charles Sanders Peirce’s conception of the sign. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The Routledge com-
panion to semiotics and linguistics (pp. 28–​39). London and New York: Routledge.
Newmeyer, F. J. (1992). Iconicity and generative grammar. Language, 68, 756–​796.
Newmeyer, F. J. (1994). A note on Chomsky on form and function. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 245–​251.
Ochs Keenan, E. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society, 5, 67–​80.
Osborn, P. G. (1927). A concise law dictionary for students and practitioners. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Panther, K.-​U. (2013). Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an
interdisciplinary perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Panther, K.-​U. (2014). Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive
morphology and syntax. In G. Drożdż & A. Łyda (Eds.), Extension and its limits (pp. 10–​38). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Panther, K.-​U. (2016). How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 2, 177–​214.
Panther, K.-​U., & Radden, G. (2011). Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-​U. Panther & G.
Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–​26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-​U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2012). Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb particle
constructions. Language Value, 4, 63–​83.
Pfeifer, R., & Bongard. J. (2007). How the body shapes the way we think: A new view of intelligence. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivarol, A. de (2014 [1784]). De l’universalité de la langue française. Paris: Flammarion.
Saussure, F. de (1995 [1916]). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Pavot & Rivages.

59
 References

Searle, J. (1972). Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. New York Review of Books, June 29, 1972. http://​
davidjamesbar.net/​L ogic/​R eadings/​E ntries/​2 013/​1 /​2 9_​R eading_​f or_​F riday,_​F ebruary_​1 st_​f iles/​
Searle,%20Chomsky’s%20Revolution%20in%20Lingustics.pdf
Sedley, D. (2003). Plato’s ‘Cratylus’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Taylor, J. (2004). The ecology of constructions. In G. Radden & K.-​U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic
motivation (Cognitive Linguistics Research 28) (pp. 49–​73). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tomlin, R. S. (1986). Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.
Trask, R. L. (1999). Language: The basics (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German,
and Japanese. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yu, N. (2015). Embodiment, culture, and language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language
and culture (pp. 229–​239). London and New York: Routledge.
Aijmer, K. (1997). I think: An English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Jansen Westvik (Eds.), Modality in
Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–​47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.
Alba-​Salas, J. (2019). Las colocaciones tipo venirle en voluntad: un patrón construccional desaparecido. Boletín
de Filología de La Universidad de Chile, 54(2), 257–​287. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-93032019000
200257
Andersen, H. (2010). From morphologization to demorphologization. In S. Luraghi & V. Bubenik (Eds.), The
Continuum companion to historical linguistics (pp. 117–​146). London: Continuum.
Anttila, R. (1989). Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beeching, K., & Detges, U. (2014). Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic
investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill.
Boye, K., & Harder, P. (2012). A usage-​based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language,
88(1), 1–​44. https://​doi.org/​10.1353/​lan.2012.0020
Bravo, A. (2014). The Spanish auxiliary ir ‘to go’: From resultative motion verb to focus marker. In M. Devos
& J. van der Wal (Eds.), ‘COME’ and ‘GO’ off the beaten grammaticalization path (pp. 305–​351). Berlin/​
Boston: Mouton de Gruyer.
Breban, T. (2014). What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion
of interpretations. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 469–​502. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​flin.2014.016
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psych-
ology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 145–​167). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W., & Perkins, R. D. (1991). Back to the future. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.),
Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. II (pp. 16–​58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Coleman, R. (1971). The origin and development of Latin habeo infinitive. The Classical Quarterly, 21(1),
215–​232. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S0009838800028974
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (2018). Grammaticalization meets construction grammar.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Degand, L., & Evers-​Vermeul, J. (2015). Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers.
Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 16(1), 59–​85. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg
De Smet, H., & Fischer, O. (2017). The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In M.
Hundt, S. Pfenninger, & S. Mollin (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives
(pp. 240–​268). Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.
Detges, U., & Waltereit, R. (2002). Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-​pragmatic account of func-
tional change in grammar. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 21(2), 151–​195. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​
zfsw.2002.21.2.151
Diewald, G. (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald
(Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalizations (pp. 103–​120). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Diewald, G. (2011). Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 450–​461). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dostie, G. (2004). Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: analyse sémantique et traitement
lexicographique. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot.

60
 References

Erman, B., & Kotsinas, U.-​B. (1993). Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i
Modernsprakvetenskap, 10, 76–​93.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual
meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 35–​55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1997). Berkeley construction grammar. www.icsi.berkeley.edu/​~kay/​bcg/​lec02.html
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions.
Language, 64, 501–​538.
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fried, M. (2009). Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 1(2),
262–​291. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​cf.1.2.04fri
Geis, M., & Zwicky, A. (1971). On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(4), 561–​566.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1998). Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In A. Giacalone Ramat & P. J.
Hopper (Eds.), The limits of grammaticalization (pp. 107–​127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology. Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings, 7,
394–​415.
Givón, T. (1991). The evolution of dependent clause morpho-​syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In E. C. Traugott &
B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2: Types of grammatical markers (pp. 257–​310).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harder, P., & Boye, K. (2011). Grammaticalization and functional linguistics. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 56–​68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22, 315–​351. https://
doi.org/10.1075/sl.22.2.03has
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–​1068. https://​doi.
org/​10.1515/​ling.37.6.1043
Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization.
In O. Fisher, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization
(pp. 17–​44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New
reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–​101). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In R. Janda & B. Joseph (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics
(pp. 575–​601). Oxford/​Malden: Blackwell.
Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?
Linguistics, 51(6), 1205–​1247. https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ling-​2013-​0048
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation and
syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson,
& J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 21–​39). Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.
P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its
components (pp. 21–​42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, S. (2005). Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-​based study. London/​
New York: Routledge.
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Papers of
the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 139–​157). Berkeley: Berkeley
Linguistic Society, University of California.
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches
to grammaticalization. Vol. 1 (pp. 17–​35). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keller, R. (1989). Invisible-​hand theory and language evolution. Lingua, 77, 113–​127. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0024-3841(89)90011-9

61
 References

Kuryłowicz, J. (1965). The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes, 55, 55–​71. https://doi.org/10.1177/
039219216501305105
Kuteva, T. (2001). Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lass, R. (1990). How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics, 26,
79–​102.
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile, 20(3),
303–​318.
Lehmann, C. (1989). Markedness and grammaticalization. In O. M. Tomić (Ed.), Markedness in synchrony and
diachrony (pp. 175–​190). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Loureda, Ó., & Pons Bordería, S. (Eds.). (2018). New insights into the grammaticalization of discourse
markers. Leiden: Brill.
Matisoff, J. A. (1991). Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. In B. Heine & E.
Traugott (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2: Types of grammatical markers (pp. 383–​453).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meillet, A. (1912). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista Di Scienza), 12(26). [Reprinted
in Meillet, A. (1958). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Vol. I (pp. 199–​210). Paris: Honoré
Champion.]
Mithun, M. (2008). Borrowed rhetorical constructions as starting points for grammaticalization. In A. Bergs &
G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 196–​230). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narrog, H., & Ohori, T. (2011). Grammaticalization in Japanese. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 775–​785). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language,
14(2), 177–​202. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​fol.14.2.04noe
Norde, M. (2001). Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. Language Sciences, 23(2),
231–​264. 10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00022-X
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norde, M., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Exaptation and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Palacios, A., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2018). Procesos de gramaticalización en situaciones de contacto. Special
Issue Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 16(2). Madrid/​Frankfurt: Iberoamericana-​
Vervuert.
Parrott, M. (2010). Grammar for English language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosemeyer, M., & Garachana, M. (2019). De la consecución a la contraexpectación: la construccionalización
de lograr/​conseguir + infinitivo. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 12(2), 383–​422. https://
doi.org/10.1515/shll-2019-2018
Rostila, J. (2004). Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In F. Karlson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th
Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Helsinki, January 7–​9, 2004. www.researchgate.net/​publication/​
252114306_​LEXICALIZATION_​AS_​A_​WAY_​TO_​GRAMMATICALIZATION
Smirnova, E. (2015). Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development
of constructions. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic construction
grammar (pp. 81–​106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–​243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
Traugott, E. C. (1995). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Stanford, CA.
Traugott, E. C. (2002). From etymology to historical pragmatics. In D. Minkova & R. Stockwell (Eds.), Studies
in the history of the English language (pp. 19–​49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The hand-
book of historical linguistics (pp. 624–​647). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse,
L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization
(pp. 29–​71). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, E. C. (2015). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal,
E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic construction grammar (pp. 51–​79).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

62
 References

Van de Velde, F., & Norde, M. (2016). Exaptation: Taking stock of a controversial notion in linguistics. In M.
Norde & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp. 1–​35). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John
Benjamins
van Gelderen, E. (2011). Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liaison. In H. Narrog & B.
Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 43–​55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vicent, S., Darbaky, S., & Mettouchi, A. (2009). The grammaticalization of you know: From shared know-
ledge to control over the co-​speaker. English Text Construction, 2(2), 209–​227. https://doi.org/10.1075/
etc.2.2.04vin
Wall, A., & Octavio de Toledo y Huerta, A. S. (2016). Exploring and recycling: Topichood and the evolution
of Ibero-​Romance articles. In M. Norde & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp.
341–​375). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Waltereit, R. (2011). Grammaticalization and discourse. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of grammaticalization (pp. 413–​423). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winter-​Froemel, E. (2014). Re(de)fining grammaticalization from a usage-​based perspective: Discursive
ambiguity in innovation scenarios. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 503–​556. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.017
Adamson, S. M. (2000). A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying
string. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English
(pp. 39–​66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ädel, A. (2014). “What I want you to remember is…”: Audience orientation in monologic academic dis-
course. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière, & F. van de Velde (Series Eds.), Benjamins Current Topics: Vol. 72.
Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances
(pp. 101–​127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beeching, K., Degand, L., Detges, U., Traugott, E. C., & Waltereit, R. (2009). Summary of the workshop on
meaning in diachrony at the Conference of Meaning in Interaction (Unpublished manuscript). University
of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Breban, T. (2010). English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Brems, L. (2011). Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Brems, L., Ghesquière L., & Van de Velde, F. (Series Eds.). (2014). Benjamins Current Topics: Vol. 72.
Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cornillie, B. (2008). On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-​) auxiliaries in
Spanish. In E. Seoane & M. J. López-​Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization
(pp. 55–​76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and gram-
maticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Defour, T. (2008). The speaker’s voice: A diachronic study on the use of well and now as pragmatic markers.
English Text Construction, 1(1), 62–​82.
Degand, L. (2011). Plaats en functie hangen samen dus. De vraag is hoe? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 16(3),
352–​353.
Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2012). Competing connectives in the causal domain: French car and parce que.
Journal of Pragmatics, 44(2), 154–​168.
De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–​392.
Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics,
17(4), 463–​489.
Ghesquière, L. (2011). The directionality of (inter)subjectification processes in the English noun
phrase: Pathways of change. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leuven, Belgium.
Ghesquière, L., Brems, L., & Van de Velde, F. (2014). Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: Typology
and operationalization. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière, & F. van de Velde (Series Eds.), Benjamins Current
Topics: Vol. 72. Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and
descriptive advances (pp. 129–​153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of dis-
course. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Kimps, D. (2007). Declarative constant polarity tag questions: A data-​driven analysis of their form, meaning
and attitudinal uses. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 270–​291.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
López-​Couso, M. J. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.),
Historical pragmatics (pp. 127–​163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

63
 References

Narrog, H. (2014). Beyond intersubjectification: Textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses
as part of speech-​act orientation. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière, & F. van de Velde (Series Eds.), Benjamins
Current Topics: Vol. 72. Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical
and descriptive advances (pp. 29–​51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (Eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization from a typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nuyts, J. (2001a). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-​pragmatic perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2001b). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of
Pragmatics, 33(3), 383–​400.
Nuyts, J. (2014). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière, & F. van de Velde (Series
Eds.), Benjamins Current Topics: Vol. 72. Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and dis-
course: Theoretical and descriptive advances (pp. 53–​76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ohala, J. J. (1983). Cross-​language use of pitch: An ethological view. Phonetica, 40(1), 1–​18.
Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-​language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica,
41(1), 1–​16.
Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound-​symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J.
Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 325–​347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rhee, S. (2010). Context-​induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: Cases of grammaticalization of
sentence-​final particles. Paper presented at International Conference on Grammaticalization and (Inter)
subjectification (Gramis). Brussels, November 11–​13, 2010.
Schiffrin, D. (1990). The management of a cooperative self during arguments: The role of opinions and stories.
In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sicca, L., & Izzo, F. (1995). La gestione dei processi di Turnaround. Un caso esemplare: La Pirelli S.P.A.
Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
Thompson, G. (2014). Intersubjectivity in newspaper editorials: Construing the reader-​in-​the-​text. In L.
Brems, L. Ghesquière, & F. van de Velde (Series Eds.), Benjamins Current Topics: Vol. 72. Intersubjectivity
and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances (pp. 77–​100).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-​pragmatic
aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics
(pp. 245–​271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language
change (pp. 124–​139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L.
Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.
29–​71). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière, & F. van de
Velde (Series Eds.), Benjamins Current Topics: Vol. 72. Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in
grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances (pp. 7–​27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van der Wouden, T., & Foolen, A. (2011). Pragmatische partikels in de rechterperiferie. Nederlandse Taalkunde,
16(3), 307–​322.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Verhagen, A. (2007). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anthonissen, L., De Wit, A., & Mortelmans, T. (2016). Aspect meets modality: A semantic analysis of the
German ‘am V sein’ construction. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28, 1–​30.
Anthonissen, L., De Wit, A., & Mortelmans, T. (2019). (Inter)subjective uses of the Dutch progressive
constructions. Linguistics, 57, 1111–​1159.
Bary, C. (2012). The Ancient Greek tragic aorist revisited. Glotta, 88, 31–​53.
Brisard, F. (2002). The English present. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and
reference (pp. 251–​297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F. (2013). An account of English tense and aspect in Cognitive Grammar. In K. M. Jaszczolt & L. de
Saussure (Eds.), Time: Language, cognition, and reality (pp. 210–​235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidse, K. (2004). The interaction of quantification and identification in English determiners. In M. Achard &
S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 507–​533). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

64
 References

De Wit, A. (2017). The present perfective paradox across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014). A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present pro-
gressive. Journal of Linguistics, 50, 49–​90.
De Wit, A., Brisard, F., & Meeuwis, M. (2018). The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: The case of
performatives. Language and Cognition, 10, 234–​265.
De Wit, A., Petré, P., & Brisard, F. (2020). Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics [Special
Issue Beyond Time], 56(3), 479–514.
Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Donabédian-​Demopoulos, A. (2012). Evidentiel et progressif: Quel statut grammatical pour la saillance
prédicative? Faits de Langues, 39, 65–​82.
Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 79–​89.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–​38.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2001). The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 251–​272.
Langacker, R. W. (2002a). Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of
deixis and reference (pp. 1–​28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2002b). Remarks on the English grounding systems. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The
epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 29–​38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2011). The English present: Temporal coincidence vs. epistemic immediacy. In A.
Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality (pp. 45–​86).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. W. (2016). Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 405–​439.
Langacker, R. W. (2017). Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. English Text Construction,
10, 233–​248.
Ljung, M. (1980). Reflections on the English progressive. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Mortelmans, T. (2006). Langacker’s subjectification and grounding: A more gradual view. In A. Athanasiadou,
C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 151–​176).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pelyvás, P. (2006). Subjectification in (expressions of) epistemic modality and the development of the
grounding predication. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various
paths to subjectivity (pp. 121–​150). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Abdel-​Raheem, A. (2018). Multimodal humor: Integrating blending model, relevance theory, and incongruity
theory. Multimodal Communication, 7(1).
Antonopoulou, E. (2002). A cognitive approach to literary humor devices: Translating Raymond Chandler.
Translator, 8(2), 235–​257.
Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K. (2009). Deconstructing verbal humour with construction grammar. In G.
Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 289–​314). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Antonopoulou, E., Nikiforidou, K., & Tsakona,V. (2015). Construction grammar and discoursal incon-
gruity. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 13–​48).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor. International Journal of
Humor Research, 10(4), 395–​420.
Attardo, S. (2001). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2002). Cognitive stylistics of humorous texts. In E. Semino & J. Culpeper (Eds.), Cognitive
stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis (pp. 231–​250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Attardo, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistics and humor. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3),
341–​362.
Attardo, S. (2007). On the GTVH and SSTH: Comments on Raskin’s Interview. In D. Popa and S. Attardo
(Eds.), New approaches to the linguistics of humour (pp. 226–​229). Galati: Academica.
Attardo, S. (2015). Humorous metaphors. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics
and humor research (pp. 91–​110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, S. (2017). The General Theory of Verbal Humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lan-
guage and humor (pp. 126–​142). New York: Routledge.

65
 References

Attardo, S. (2018). Is smiling during humor so obvious? A cross-​cultural comparison of smiling behavior
in humorous sequences in American English and French interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 15(4),
563–​591.
Attardo, S. (2020a). The linguistics of humor: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Attardo, S. (2020b). Scripts, frames, and other semantic objects. In S. Attardo (Ed.), Script-​based
semantics: Foundations and applications. Essays in honor of Victor Raskin (pp. 11–​41). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3–​4), 293–​347.
Barcelona, A. (2003). The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and
funny anecdotes. In K.-​U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 81–​
102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bergen, B., & Binsted, K. (2004). The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In Achard, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 79–​92). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Bergen, B., & Binsted, K. (2015). Embodied grammar and humor. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 49–​67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brône, G. (2008). Hyper-​ and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12),
2027–​2061.
Brône, G. (2012). Humor and irony in cognitive pragmatics. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp.
463–​504). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brône, G. (2017). Cognitive linguistics and humor research. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of
language and humor (pp. 250–​266). New York: Routledge.
Brône, G., & Coulson, S. (2010). Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Double grounding.
Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212–​236.
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T. (2006). Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor.
International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 203–​228.
Chang, J., Zhang, M., Hitchman, G., Qiu, J., & Liu, Y. (2014). When you smile, you become happy: Evidence
from resting state task-​based fMRI. Biological Psychology, 103, 100–​106.
Chen, H.-​C., Chan, Y.-​C., Dai, R.-​H., Liao, Y.-​J., & Tu, C.-​H. (2017). Neurolinguistics of humor. In S. Attardo
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 282–​294). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Coulson, S. (1996). The Menendez Brothers Virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. Goldberg
(Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 67–​81). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps. Frame-​ shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. (2015). Frame-​shifting and frame semantics: Joke comprehension on the space structuring model.
In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 167–​190).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2003). Metonymy and conceptual blending. In Panther, K.-​U., & Thornburg, L.
(Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 51–​79). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dore, M. (2015) Metaphor, humor and characterisation in the TV comedy programme Friends. In G. Brône,
K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp. 191–​214). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Dynel, M. (2009). Creative metaphor is a birthday cake: Metaphor as the source of humour. Metaphorik.de,
17, 27–​48.
Dynel, M. (2011). Blending the incongruity-​resolution model and the conceptual integration theory: The case
of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3(1), 59–​83.
Dynel, M. (2018). Taking cognisance of cognitive linguistic research on humor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics,
16(1), 1–​18.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
Feyaerts, K. (2006) Towards a dynamic account of phraseological meaning: Creative variation in headlines and
conversational humor. International Journal of English Studies, 6(1), 57–​84.
Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2002). Humor through “double grounding”: Structural interaction of optimality
principles. In A. Hougaard & S. N. Lund (Eds.), The way we think (Odense Working Papers in Language
and Communication) (Vol. 23; pp. 313–​336). Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica, 6(2), 222–​254.

66
 References

Fónagy, I. (1982). He is only joking (joke, metaphor and language development). In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Hungarian
linguistics (pp. 31–​108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gallese, V. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the
Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 23–​48.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-​motor system in conceptual
knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–​4), 455–​479.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Samermit, P., & Karzmark, C. R. (2018). Humor, irony, and the body. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 16(1), 72–​96.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gironzetti, E. (2017). Prosodic and multimodal markers of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge hand-
book of language and humor (pp. 400–​413). London and New York: Routledge.
Glenberg, A. M., Havas, D., Becker, R., & Rinck, M. (2005). Grounding language in bodily states. The case
for emotion. In D. Pecker & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in
memory, language, and thinking (pp. 115–​128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goatly, A. (2012). Meaning and humor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hamrick, P. (2007). Notes on some cognitive mechanisms of humor. In D. Popa & S. Attardo (Eds.), New
approaches to the linguistics of humor (pp. 140–​150). Galati: Academica.
Harris, R. A. (1993). The linguistics wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howell, T. (2007). Two cognitive approaches to humorous narratives. In. D. Popa & S. Attardo (Eds.), New
approaches to the linguistics of humor (pp. 55–​71). Galati: Academica.
Jablonska-​Hood, J. (2015). Conceptual blending theory of humor: Selected British comedy productions in
focus. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.
Kang, B. (2016). Metaphor and its humorousness: The case of nominal compounds in German. Humor.
International Journal of Humor Research, 29(3), 359–​380.
Kaspar, K., Jurisch, A., & Schneider, M. (2016). Embodied cognition and humor: The impact of weight
sensations on humor experience and the moderating role of gender. Current Psychology, 35(3), 377–​385.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.
Krikmann, A. (2009). On the similarity and distinguishability of humor and figurative speech. Trames, 13(1), 14–​40.
Kyratzis, S. (2003, July). Laughing metaphorically: Metaphor and humor in discourse. In 8th International
Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 20–​25).
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Marín-​Arrese, J. I. (2008). Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–​18.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Meng, L., Huang, R., & Gu, J. (2013). A review of semantic similarity measures in WordNet. International
Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, 6(1), 1–​12.
Mihalcea, R., Corley, C., & Strapparava, C. (2006, July). Corpus-​based and knowledge-​based measures of
text semantic similarity. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 6, No. 2006, pp. 775–​780).
Mohammad, S. M., & Hirst, G. (2012). Distributional measures of semantic distance: A survey. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1203.1858.
Morrissey, M. M. (1989). Script theory for the analysis of humorous metaphors. In S. F. D. Hughes &
V. Raskin (Eds.), WHIMSY VII. Proceedings of the 1988 WHIM Conference, held April 1–​4, 1988
at Purdue University (pp. 124–​125). West Lafayette, IN/​Tempe, AZ: International Society for Humor
Studies.
Müller, R. (2015). A metaphorical perspective on humor. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive
linguistics and humor research (pp. 111–​128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of
Illinois.
Piata, A. (2016). When metaphor becomes a joke: Metaphor journeys from political ads to internet memes.
Journal of Pragmatics, 106, 39–​56.
Piata, A. (2017). Book review: Brône G., Feyaerts, K. and Veale, T. (eds.) (2015). Cognitive linguistics and
humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 248 pp. The European Journal of Humour Research, 4(4), 126–​130.
Pollio, H. R. (1996). Boundaries in humor and metaphor. In J. S. Mio & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications
and applications (pp. 231–​253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Raskin, V. (1979). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, 325–​335.

67
 References

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Ritchie, D. L. (2005). Frame-​shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(4), 275–​294.
Ritchie, D. L. (2013). Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ritchie, G. (2018). The comprehension of jokes: A cognitive science framework. New York: Routledge.
Rodden, F. (2018). The neurology and psychiatry of humor, smiling, and laughter. A tribute to Paul McGhee.
Part II Neurological studies and brain imaging. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 31(2),
373–​400.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 573–​605.
Samermit, P., & Gibbs, R. (2016). Humor, the body, and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistic Studies,
3(1), 32–​49.
Schilbach, L., Eickhoff, S. B., Mojzisch, A., & Vogeley, K. (2008). What’s in a smile? Neural correlates of
facial embodiment during social interaction. Social Neuroscience, 3(1), 37–​50.
Schubert, C. (2018). Verbal humor in crime drama television: A cognitive-​linguistic approach to popular TV
series. In V. Werner (Ed.), The language of pop culture (pp. 162–​183). New York: Routledge.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A
nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5),
768–​777.
Tabacaru, S., & Feyaerts, K. (2016). The power of metonymy in humor: Stretching contiguous relation across
the different layers of meaning. European Journal of Humor Research, 4(2), 1–​18.
Veale, T. (2003, July). Metaphor and metonymy: The cognitive trump-​cards of linguistic humour. Paper
presented at the International Linguistic Cognitive Conference, La Rioja. http://​afflatus.ucd.ie/​papers/​
iclc2003.pdf.
Veale, T. (2008). Figure-​ground duality in humor: A multi-​modal perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics,
4(1), 63–​81.
Veale, T., Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2015). Humour as the killer-​app of language: A view from Cognitive
Linguistics. In G. Brône, K. Feyaerts, & T. Veale (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research (pp.
1–​11). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K., & Brone, G. (2006). Cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor. International
Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 305–​338.
Veale, T., & Valitutti, A. (2017). Tweet dreams are made of this: Appropriate incongruity in the dreamwork of
language. Lingua, 197, 141–​153.
Vrticka, P., Black, J. M., & Reiss, A. L. (2013). The neural basis of humour processing. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 14(12), 860–​868.
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehen-
sion. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–​731.
Yus, F. (2016). Humor and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Auvray, M., & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3),
1016–​1031.
Barcelona, A. (2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar
and discourse. In C. Alm-​Arvius, N.-​L. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the
Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 3–​42). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
Bruhn, M. J. (2011). Harmonious madness: The poetics of analogy at the limits of Blending Theory. Poetics
Today, 32(4), 619–​662.
Buck, C. D. (1949). A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-​European languages: A contribu-
tion to the history of ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cacciari, C. (2008). Crossing the senses in metaphorical language. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 425–​444). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Calvert, G., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (Eds.). (2004). The handbook of multisensory processes. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Chen, I.-​H., Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Lu, Q., & Huang, C.-​R. (2019). Mandarin Chinese modality exclusivity norms.
PloS One, 14(2), e0211336.
Chersoni, E., Strik Lievers, F., & Huang, C.-​R. (2019). Semantic distance and creativity in linguistic synaes-
thesia. In R. Otoguro, M. Komachi, & T. Ohkuma (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Pacific Asia Conference
on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 370–​378). Tokyo: Waseda Institute for the Study of
Language and Information.
Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. London and
New York: Routledge.

68
 References

Cytowic, R. E. (1998). The man who tasted shapes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Day, S. A. (1996). Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research
on Consciousness, 2, 1–​16.
De Felice, I. (2014). La sinestesia nella poesia latina. Studi e saggi linguistici, LII(1), 61–​107.
De Salazar, D. (2019). La sinestesia. Configurazioni retoriche intersensoriali. Roma: Aracne.
Dirven, R. (1985). Metaphor as a basic means for extending the lexicon. In R. Dirven & W. Paprotté (Eds.),
The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 85–​119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dombi, E. (1970). An index of incompatibility for synaesthesia. Revue roumaine de linguistique, XV(6),
571–​577.
Dromard, G. (1908). Les transpositions sensorielles dans la langue littéraire. Journal de psychologie, normale
et pathologique, 5, 492–​507.
Engstrom, A. G. (1946). In defence of synaesthesia in literature. Philological Quarterly, 25, 1–​19.
Huang, C.-​R., & Xiong, J. (2019). Linguistic synaesthesia in Chinese. In C.-​R. Huang, J.-​S. Zhuo, & B.
Meisterernst (Eds.), Routledge handbook on Chinese applied linguistics. London: Routledge.
Jo, C. (2019). A corpus-​based analysis of synesthetic metaphors in Korean. Linguistic Research, 36(3),
459–​483.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lehrer, A. (1978). Structures of the lexicon and transfer of meaning. Lingua, 45(2), 95–​123.
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–​427.
Lien, C. (1994). Synaesthetic words in the southern Min dialects: Their structure and change. In J. Li, C.-​R.
Huang, & J. C. C. Tang (Eds.), Chinese languages and linguistics II: Historical linguistics (pp. 421–​451).
Nankang: Academia Sinica.
Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2019). The Lancaster Sensorimotor
Norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior
Research Methods, 52(3), 1271–​1291.
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language.
Cognition, 130(2), 266–​270.
Mancaş, M. (1962). La synesthésie dans la création artistique de M. Eminescu, T. Arghezi et M. Sadoveanu.
Cahiers de linguistique théorique et appliquée, 1, 55–​87.
Marks, L. E. (1990). Synaesthesia: Perception and metaphor. In F. Burwick, W. Pape, F. Burwick, & W. Pape
(Eds.), Aesthetic illusion (pp. 28–​40). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
Marks, L. E. (2011). Synesthesia, then and now. Intellectica. Revue de l’Association pour la Recherche
Cognitive, 55(1), 47–​80.
Marotta, G. (2011). Perché i colori chiassosi non fanno chiasso? Vincoli semantici e sintattici sulle associazioni
sinestetiche. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, XCVI(2), 195–​220.
Marotta, G. (2012). Sinestesie tra vista, udito e dintorni: Un’analisi semantica distribuzionale. In M. Catricalà
(Ed.), Sinestesie e monoestesie: Prospettive a confronto (pp. 19–​51). Milano: Franco Angeli.
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–​748.
O’Malley, G. (1957). Literary synesthesia. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15(4), 391–​411.
Paradis, C. (2015). Conceptual spaces at work in sensory cognition: Domains, dimensions and distances.
In F. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces (pp. 33–​55). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Paradis, C., & Eeg-​Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor
and Symbol, 28(1), 22–​40.
Prandi, M. (2017). Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language. New York and London: Routledge.
Rakova, M. (2003). The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and lan-
guage. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–​34.
Reilly, J., Flurie, M., & Peelle, J. E. (2020). The English lexicon mirrors functional brain activation for a
sensory hierarchy dominated by vision and audition: Point-​counterpoint. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 55,
100895.
Ronga, I., Bazzanella, C., Rossi, F., & Iannetti, G. (2012). Linguistic synaesthesia, perceptual synaesthesia, and
the interaction between multiple sensory modalities. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(1), 135–​167.
Rosiello, L. (1963). Le sinestesie nell’opera poetica di Montale. Rendiconti, 7.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational
patterns. Language and Communication, 71, 16–​38.
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., … Majid, A. (2015).
Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-​visual verbs varies. Cognitive
Linguistics, 26(1).

69
 References

Sathian, K., & Ramachandran, V. S. (Eds.). (2019). Multisensory perception: From laboratory to clinic. San
Diego: Elsevier.
Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–​72.
Shen, Y., & Aisenman, R. (2008). ‘Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter’: Synaesthetic
metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17(2), 107–​121.
Shen, Y., & Cohen, M. (1998). How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: A cognitive account of
directionality in poetic synaesthesia. Language and Literature, 7(2), 123–​140.
Shen, Y., & Gil, D. (2008). Sweet fragrances from Indonesia: A universal principle governing directionality
in synaesthetic metaphors. In J. Auracher & W. van Peer (Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp.
49–​70). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Shibuya, Y., Nozawa, H., & Kanamaru, T. (2007). Understanding synesthetic expressions: Vision and olfaction
with the physiological = psychological model. In M. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and
odors (pp. 203–​226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shinohara, K., & Nakayama, A. (2011). Modalities and directions in synaesthetic metaphors in Japanese.
Cognitive Studies, 18(3), 491–​507.
Stokes, D., & Biggs, S. (2014). The dominance of the visual. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Eds.),
Perception and its modalities (pp. 350–​378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strik Lievers, F. (2015a). Synaesthesia: A corpus-​based study of cross-​modal directionality. Functions of
Language, 22(1), 69–​95.
Strik Lievers, F. (2015b). Synesthésies: Croisements des sens entre langage et perception. L’information
grammaticale, 146, 27–​33.
Strik Lievers, F. (2016). Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e saggi linguistici, 54(1), 43–​70.
Strik Lievers, F. (2017). Figures and the senses: Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 15(1), 83–​101.
Strik Lievers, F. (2018). Synaesthesia and other figures. What the senses tell us about figurative language. In
A. Baicchi, R. Digonnet, & J. L. Sandford (Eds.), Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epis-
temology (pp. 193–​207). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Strik Lievers, F., & De Felice, I. (2019). Metaphors and perception in the lexicon. A diachronic perspec-
tive. In L. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 85–​104).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Strik Lievers, F., & Huang, C.-​R. (2016). A lexicon of perception for the identification of synaesthetic metaphors
in corpora. Proceedings of the 10th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), 2270–​2277.
Strik Lievers, F., & Winter, B. (2018). Sensory language across lexical categories. Lingua, 204, 45–​61.
Tornitore, T. (2000). Sinestesie. Proposta di definizione e classificazione. Lingua e stile, 2, 303–​314.
Tsur, R. (2007). Issues in literary synaesthesia. Style, 41(1), 30–​51.
Ullmann, S. (1945). Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron.
Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 60(3), 811–​827.
Ullmann, S. (1957). The principles of semantics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Viberg, Å. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–​162.
Wang, W., & Akitani, H. (2014). 漢語「聞／嗅」義詞的現狀與歷史 [Synchronic distribution and dia-
chronic development of words encoding “to smell” in Chinese]. Language and Linguistics, 15(5), 699–​732.
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–​478.
Winter, B. (2016). Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the
English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–​988.
Winter, B. (2019a). Sensory linguistics. Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Winter, B. (2019b). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed, C.
O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 105–​126). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Xiong, J., & Huang, C.-​R. (2016). The synaesthetic and metaphorical uses of 味 wei ‘taste’ in Chinese Buddhist
sutras. Presented at the PALIC-​30, Seoul.
Xiong, J., & Huang, C.-​R. (2018). Somewhere in COLDNESS lies Nibbāna: Lexical manifestations of
COLDNESS. In J.-​F. Hong, Q. Su, & J.-​S. Wu (Eds.), Chinese lexical semantics. CLSW 2018 (Vol. 11173,
pp. 70–​81). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Yu, N. (2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1).
Zawisławska, M., Falkowska, M., & Ogrodniczuk, M. (2018). Verbal synaesthesia in the Polish corpus of syn-
aesthetic metaphors. LaMiCuS, 2, 226–​253.
Zhao, Q. (2020). Embodied conceptualization or neural realization: A corpus-​driven study of Mandarin syn-
aesthetic adjectives. Singapore: SpringerNature.
Zhao, Q., Huang, C.-​R., & Ahrens, K. (2019). Directionality of linguistic synesthesia in Mandarin: A corpus-​
based study. Lingua, 232, 102744.

70
 References

Zhao, Q., Huang, C.-​R., & Long, Y. (2018). Synaesthesia in Chinese: A corpus-​based study on gustatory
adjectives in Mandarin. Linguistics, 56(5), 1167–​1194.
Zhao, Q., Huang, C.-​R., & Xiong, J. (2019). Linguistic synaesthesia, metaphor and cognition: The systematicity
and significance of linguistic synaesthesia in Chinese. [In Chinese]. Zhongguoyuwen 中国语文, 2019(2),
240–​253.
Zhong, Y. (2020). Sensory lexicon, sensory modalities and lexical categories in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished
PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Austin, P. K. (2016). Language documentation 20 years on. In L. F. Pütz (Ed.), Endangered languages and
languages in danger (pp. 147–​170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-​cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–​128.
Boas, F. (1896). The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology. Science, 4(103), 901–​908.
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. Handbook of American Indian languages. Vol. 1 (pp. 1–​83). Smithsonian
Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. Washington: Government Print Office.
Bronckart, J.-​P. (2012). Contributions of Piagetian Constructivism to Social Interactionism. In E. Martí & C.
Rodríguez (Eds.), After Piaget (pp. 43–​58). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Brown, P. (2015). Language, culture and spatial cognition. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), (2014) The Routledge hand-
book of language and culture (pp. 294–​308). New York: Routledge.
Brown, R. F. (2017). Mary and the art of prayer: The Hours of the Virgin in Medieval Christian life and
thought. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brown, R., & Lenneberg, E. (1954). A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 49, 454–​462.
Cabrial, A. S. C. C., Sampaio, W. B. A., & Sinha, V. D. C. (2016). Indigenous language policies in Brazil: Training
indigenous people as teachers and researchers. In L. Filipovic & M. Pütz (Eds.), Endangered languages and
languages in danger (pp. 45–​59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carrithers, M., Barry, A., Brady, I., Geertz, C., Keesing, R. M., Roth, P. A., … Whittaker, E. (1990). Is anthro-
pology art or science? [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology, 31, 263–​282.
Casey C., & Edgerton, R. B. (Eds.). (2005). A companion to psychological anthropology: Modernity and
psychocultural change. Blackwell Companions to Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J. A., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking: An explor-
ation in experimental anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications.
Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDermott, R. (1978). Ecological niche picking: Ecological invalidity as an axiom
of experimental cognitive psychology. Rockefeller University, Laboratory of Comparative Human
Cognition.
Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B. (2008). The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear
morpheme-​by-​morpheme glosses. Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology and the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig. www.eva.mpg.de/​lingua/​
resources/​glossing-​rules.php
Condillac, E. B., Abbé de (1987 [1746]). Philosophical writings. Vol. 2, trans. F. Philip. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Darnell, R. (2006). Benjamin Lee Whorf and the Boasian foundations of contemporary ethnolinguistics. In
C. Jourdan & K. Tuite (Eds.), Language, culture and society: Key topics in linguistic anthropology (pp.
82–​95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dasen, P. R., Mishra, R. C., & Wassmann, J. (2018). Quasi-​experimental research in culture sensitive psych-
ology. Culture & Psychology, 24(3), 327–​342. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​1354067X18779043
Davies, I., & Corbett, G. (1994). The basic color terms of Russian. Linguistics, 32, 65–​90.
Duranti, A. (2003). Language as culture in US anthropology: Three paradigms. Current Anthropology, 44,
323–​347.
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian
languages. Language, 76, 546–​592.
Evans-​Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of
a Nilotic people. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
metaphor and thought (pp. 53–​66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71
 References

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-​to-​face behaviors. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gries, S. T. (2016). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. London: Taylor & Francis.
Grinevald, C., & Sinha, C. (2016). North-​South relations in linguistic science: Collaboration or coloni-
alism? In L. Filipovic & M. Pütz (Eds), Endangered languages and languages in danger (pp. 25–​44).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (1997). From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. Munich: Lincom.
Hoerl, C., & McCormack, T. (2019). Thinking in and about time: A dual systems perspective on temporal cog-
nition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, e244: 1–​69.
Humboldt, W. von (1999). On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence
on the mental development of the human species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Original pub-
lication (1836) Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige
Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts.
Hutto, D. D., Gallagher, S., Ilundáin-​Agurruza, J., & Hipólito, I. (2020). Culture in mind—​An enactivist
account: Not cognitive penetration but cultural permeation. Unpublished manuscript.
Jensen de López, K., Hayashi, M., & Sinha, C. (2005). Early shaping of spatial meanings in three languages and
cultures: Linguistic or cultural relativity? In A. Makkai, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), Selected
papers from the LACUS Forum XXXI 2003: Interconnections (pp. 379–​388). Houston, TX: Linguistic
Association of Canada and the United States.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jourdan, C., & Tuite, K. (2006). Language, culture and society: Key topics in linguistic anthropology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X
doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–​33.
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language,
54(3), 610–​646.
Kemmerer, D. (1999). Neuroscientific evidence against Wierzbicka’s analysis of the meanings of basic color
terms. In M. K. Hiraga, S. Wilcox, & C. Sinha (Eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in
cognitive linguistics (pp. 249–​268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Köpping, K. P. (1983). Adolf Bastian and the psychic unity of mankind: The foundations of anthropology in
nineteenth century Germany. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University, 47(1), viii, 223.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leavitt, J. (2010). Linguistic relativities: Language diversity and modern thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Le Guen, O. (2017). Una concepción del tiempo no-​lineal en dos lenguas: el maya yucateco colonial y actual
y la lengua de señas maya yucateca. Journal de la Société des Américanistes [online]. http://​journals.
openedition.org/​jsa/​15327; DOI: 10.4000/​jsa.15327
Le Guen, O., & Pool Balam, L. I. (2012). No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec
Mayas. Frontiers in Psychology (Cultural Psychology), 3, 271.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 353–​382.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C., & Gumperz, J. J. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lévy-​Bruhl, L. (1910). Les fonctions mentales dans les societés inférieures. Paris: Alcan.

72
 References

Lévy-​Bruhl, L. (1949). Les carnets de Lévy-​Bruhl. Paris: Presses Universitaire.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2011). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Lu, Y. Y. (2019). “Self” in language, culture, and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lucy, J. A. (1992a). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1992b). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1997). The linguistics of ‘color’. In C. L. Hardin & L. Maffi (Eds.), Color categories in thought
and language (pp. 320–​346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations (Ed. Michael Cole). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
MacLaury, R. E. (1997). Color and cognition in Mesoamerica: Constructing categories as vantages.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motiv-
ation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–​253.
Marsella, A. J., De Vos, G. A., & Hsu, F. L. (Eds.). (1985). Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives.
New York: Tavistock Publications.
Merleau-​Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mertz, E., & Parmentier, R. J. (1985). Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives.
New York: Academic Press.
Morgan, L. H. (1877). Ancient society; Or, researches in the lines of human progress from savagery, through
barbarism to civilization. New York: H. Holt.
Munn, N. D. (1992). The cultural anthropology of time: A critical essay. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21,
93–​123.
Nickerson, D. (1940). History of the Munsell color system and its scientific application. Journal of the Optical
Society of America, 30, 575–​586.
Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 17, 220–​229.
Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara lan-
guage and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30,
401–​450.
Palmer, G. (1996) Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Pertierra, R. (1983). Lévy-​Bruhl and modes of thought: A re-​appraisal. Mankind, 14(2), 112–​126. http://​
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/​doi/​10.1111/​j.1835-​9310.1983.tb01257.x/​abstract
Peterman, B. S. (2000). Levy-​Bruhl in Piaget: Hermeneutic analysis of text and context. Developmental
Review, 20(3), 405–​437. https://​sciencedirect.com/​science/​article/​pii/​s0273229799905038
Pike, K. (1975) Selected writings (to commemorate the 60th birthday of Kenneth Lee Pike). (Ed. R. M. Brend).
The Hague: Mouton.
Postill, J. (2002). Clock and calendar time: A missing anthropological problem. Time and Society, 11(2/​3),
251–​270.
Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R. L., & Shapiro, L. (2006). Colour categories and category acqui-
sition in Himba and English. In N. J. Pitchford & C. P. Biggam (Eds.), Progress in color studies. Vol.
II: Psychological aspects (pp. 159–​172). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–​350.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-​taking for
conversation. Language, 50, 696–​735.
Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings in language, culture and personality. (Ed. D. G. Mandelbaum). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Saunders, B. (2006). The normativity of colour. In C. P. Biggam & C. J. Kay (Eds.), Progress in color studies.
Vol. I: Language and culture (pp. 89–​100). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Senft, G. (2007). Bronislaw Malinowski and linguistic pragmatics. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3(1), 79–​96.
Sharifian, F. (2017) Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2008). Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations
of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture and the problem of meaning. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Silva Sinha, V. da (2019). Event-​based time in three indigenous Amazonian and Xinguan cultures and
languages. Frontiers in Psychology (Cultural Psychology), 10, 454.
Silva Sinha, V. da, Moreno-​Núñez, A., & Tian, Z. (2020). Language, culture and identity: Signs of life.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

73
 References

Silva Sinha, V. da, Sinha, C., Sampaio, W., & Zinken, J. (2012). Event-​based time intervals in an Amazonian
culture. In L. Filipović & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures II: Language, cul-
ture, and cognition (pp. 15–​35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sinha, C. (1988). Language and representation: A socio-​naturalistic approach to human development. Hemel
Hempstead: Harvester-​Wheatsheaf.
Sinha, C. (2007). Cognitive linguistics, psychology and cognitive science. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1266–​1294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinha, C. (2015). Language and other artifacts: Socio-​cultural dynamics of niche construction. Frontiers in
Psychology (Cognitive Science), 6, 1601. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2015.01601
Sinha, C. (2017a). Getting the measure of meaning. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cog-
nitive linguistics (pp. 493–​497). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinha, C. (2017b). Ten lectures on language, culture and mind. Cultural, developmental and evolutionary
perspectives in cognitive linguistics. Leiden: Brill.
Sinha, C., & Bernárdez, E. (2015). Metaphors, maps and fusions: Space, time and space-​time. In F. Sharifian
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 309–​324). New York: Routledge.
Sinha, C., & Gärdenfors, P. (2014). Time, space, and events in language and cognition: A comparative view.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1326, 72–​81.
Sinha, C., & Jensen de López, K. (2000). Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive
Linguistics, 11, 17–​41.
Sinha, C., Silva Sinha, V. da, Zinken, J., & Sampaio, W. (2011). When time is not space: The social and lin-
guistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. Language and
Cognition, 3, 137–​169.
Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category—​ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).
Spencer-​Oatey, H. (2012). What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. Available
at GlobalPAD Open House. www.warwick.ac.uk/​globalpadintercultural
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Trabant, J. (2000). How relativistic are Humboldt’s “Weltansichten”? In M. Pütz & M. Verspoor (Eds.),
Explorations in linguistic relativity (pp. 25–​44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tylor, E. B. (1865). Researches into the early history of mankind and the development of civilization.
Edinburgh: J. Murray.
Valsiner, J. (1995). Editorial. Culture & Psychology, 1, 5–​10.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. (Ed. M. Cole, V.
John-​Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics,
1, 99–​150.
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). The semantics of colour. In C. P. Biggam & C. J. Kay (Eds.), Progress in color studies.
Vol. I: Language and culture (pp. 1–​24). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yu, N. (2009). The Chinese heart in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body and language. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Yu, N. (2014). Embodiment, culture and language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language
and culture (pp. 227–​239). New York: Routledge.
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning.
New York: Basic Books.
Colston, H. L. (1997a). “I’ve never seen anything like it”: Overstatement, understatement and irony. Metaphor
and Symbol, 12(1), 43–​58.
Colston, H. L. (1997b). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism.
Discourse Processes, 23, 25–​45.
Colston, H. L. (1999). “Not good” is “bad”, but “not bad” is not “good”: An analysis of three accounts of neg-
ation asymmetry. Discourse Processes, 28(3), 237–​256.
Colston, H. L. (2000). On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition,
8(2), 277–​324.
Colston, H. L. (2002). Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–​142.
Colston, H. L. (2007). What figurative language development reveals about the mind. In A. C. Schalley &
D. Khlentzos (Eds.), Mental states. Vol. 2: Language and cognitive structure (pp. 191–​212). Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

74
 References

Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colston, H. L. (2017). Irony performance and perception: What underlies verbal, situational and other ironies?
In A. Athanasiadou & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication. Figurative Thought
and Language (Vol. 1), (pp. 19–​42). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Colston, H. L. (2019). How language makes meaning: Embodiment and conjoined antonymy.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colston, H. L. (2019). Figurative language acquisition/​developmental research: Status and ways forward.
Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 176–190.
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (1998). Analogy and irony: Rebuttal to “Rebuttal Analogy”. Metaphor and
Symbol, 13(1), 69–​75.
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–​513.
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000a). Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understate-
ment can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–​1583.
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000b). Contrast of kind vs. contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic
accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179–​199.
Dirven, R. (2002). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R.
Dirven & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75–​111). Berlin/​
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (2005). Major strands in cognitive linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & S. Pena Cevel
(Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 69–​100). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years in cognitive linguistics. In E.
Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to applica-
tion and back (pp. 11–​70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.
Ford, T, Stangor, C., & Duan, C. (1994). Influence of social category accessibility and category-​associated trait
accessibility on judgments of individuals. Social Cognition, 12(2), 149–​168.
Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1 & 2), 5–​27.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Colston, H. L., & Johnson, M. D. (1996). Proverbs and the metaphorical mind. Metaphor and
Symbolic Activity, 11, 207–​216.
Gibbs, R. W., Johnson, M. D., & Colston, H. L. (1996). How to study proverb understanding. Metaphor and
Symbolic Activity, 11, 233–​239.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
9(3), 558–​565.
Gomola, A. (2010). From GOD IS A FATHER to GOD IS A FRIEND. Conceptual integration in metaphors for
God in Christian discourse. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in
action: From theory to application and back (pp. 387–​408). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Herr, P. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1106–​1115.
Honeck, R. (1998). A proverb in mind: The cognitive science of proverbial wit and wisdom. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. New York: Broadway Books.
Majid, A. (2019). Mapping words reveals emotional diversity. Science, 366(6472), 1444–​1445.
Majid, A., Gaby, A., & Boroditsky, L (2013). Time in terms of space. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 554.
Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1979). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language, memory and thought.
Cambridge, MA: Shenkman.
Murdoch, B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–​488.
Panther, K. U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. (Eds.). (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/​
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Penttila, E. (2010). A prototype-​based taxonomy of idiomatic expressions. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, &
L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 145–​162).
Berlin/​New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

75
 References

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication.
Albolote, Granada: Editorial Comares.
Smith, E., & Branscombe, N. (1988). Category accessibility as implicit memory. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 24(6), 490–​504.
Williams, K. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.
Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B. (Eds.). (2006). Subjectification. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Binnick, R. I. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boogaart, R., & Fortuin, E. (2016). Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars.
In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood (pp. 514–​534).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boogaart, R., & Janssen, T. (2007). Tense and aspect. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of cognitive linguistics (pp. 803–​828). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (Eds.). (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in
the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Byloo, P., & Nuyts, J. (2014). Meaning change in the Dutch core modals: (Inter)subjectification in a grammat-
ical paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 46, 85–​116.
Cappelle, B., & Depraetere, I. (Eds.). (2016). Modal meaning in Construction Grammar. Constructions and
Frames, 8, Special Issue.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Ö. (Ed.). (2000). Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and gram-
maticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dik, S. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Foley, W., & Van Valin, R. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L. (2008). Functional discourse grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, P. J. (Ed.). (1982). Tense-​aspect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–​38.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Remarks on the English grounding systems. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding (pp.
29–​38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
López-​Couso, M. J. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.),
Historical pragmatics (pp. 127–​163). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Malchukov, A. (2011). Interaction of verbal categories. Linguistics, 49, 229–​282.
Mani, I., Pustejovsky, J., & Gaizauskas, R. (Eds.). (2005). The language of time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaelis, L. A. (1998). Aspectual grammar and past time reference. London: Routledge.
Mortelmans, T. (2007). Modality in cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 869–​889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nuyts, J. (2002). Grounding and the system of epistemic expressions in Dutch: A cognitive-​functional view. In
F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding (pp. 433–​466). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nuyts, J. (2005a). Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In F. Ruiz
de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary inter-
action (pp. 69–​100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nuyts, J. (2005b). The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In A. Klinge & H. H.
Müller (Eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function (pp. 5–​38). London: Equinox.
Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In W. Frawley (Ed.), The expression of modality
(pp. 1–​26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nuyts, J. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 543–​565). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76
 References

Nuyts, J. (2008). Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use.
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 185–​207.
Nuyts, J. (2009). The ‘one-​commitment-​per-​clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualificational cat-
egories. Linguistics, 47, 141–​171.
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5, 53–​76.
Nuyts, J. (2016). Analyses of the modal meanings. In J. Nuyts & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of modality and mood (pp. 31–​49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nuyts, J. (2017). Evidentiality reconsidered. In J. I. Marin-​Arrese, G. Haßler, & M. Carretero (Eds.),
Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive Grammar, functional and discourse-​pragmatic perspectives (pp. 57–​83).
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nuyts, J., & van der Auwera, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nuyts, J., & Byloo, P. (2015). Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica, 32, 34–​68.
Nuyts, J., Byloo, P., & Diepeveen, J. (2010). On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch
mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 16–​34.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–​100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Traugott, E. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. Language, 65, 31–​55.
Traugott, E. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language
change (pp. 124–​139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H.
Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–​71). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Traugott, E., & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valin, R. Van. (2005). The syntax-​semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valin, R. Van, & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics,
5(2), 229–​258.
Baldwin, D. A., & Baird, J. A. (2001). Discerning intentions in dynamic human action. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 5, 171–​178.
Bambini, V. (2010). Neuropragmatics: A foreword. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 1–​20.
Bara, B. G., & Tirassa, M. (2000). Neuropragmatics: Brain and communication. Brain and Language,
71, 10–​14.
Bar-​Hillel, Y. (1971). Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(3), 401–​407.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(11), 668–​691.
Bezuidenhout, A. (2017). Contextualism and semantic minimalism. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bratman, M. (1992). Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 101, 327–​341.
Cappelen H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cappelle, B. (2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.),
Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 115–​151). Cham: Springer.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. (2007). How many pragmatic systems are there? In M. Frapolli (Ed.), Saying, meaning, referring.
Essays on the philosophy of Fançois Recanati (pp. 1–​17). New York: Palgrave.
Carston, R. (2008). Linguistic communication and the semantics/​pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3),
321–​345.
Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, 110(3), 295–​321.
Carston, R. (2012). Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29(4), 607–​623.
Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391–​416.
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/​pragmatics interface. Structures
and Beyond, 3, 39–​103.
Chomsky N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Christensen, W., & Michael, J. (2015). From two systems to a multi-​systems architecture for mindreading. New
Ideas in Psychology, 40, 48–​64.
Cooper, R., & Shallice, T. (2006). Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior.
Psychological Review, 113(4), 887–​916.

77
 References

Cummings, L. (2009). Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummings, L. (Ed.). (2017). Research in clinical pragmatics (Vol. 11). Cham: Springer.
Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the brain. Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts.
New York: Viking Press.
Domaneschi, F., & Bambini V. (2020). Pragmatic competence. In C. Pavese & E. Fridland (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of skill and expertise (pp. 419–430). Abingdon: Routledge.
Dummett, M. (1981). The interpretation of Frege’s philosophy. London: Duckworth.
Elqayam, S. (2017). The new paradigm in psychology of reasoning. In L. J. Ball & V. A. Thompson (Eds.),
International handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 152–​172). London/​New York: Routledge.
Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-​analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–​395.
Fenici, M. (2017). What is the role of experience in children’s success in the False Belief Test: Maturation,
facilitation, attunement or induction? Mind & Language, 32(3), 308–​337.
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frank, C. K. (2018). Reviving pragmatic theory of theory of mind. AIMS Neuroscience, 5(2), 116–​131.
Garfield, J. L., Peterson, C. C., & Perry, T. (2001). Social cognition, language acquisition and the development
of the theory of mind. Mind & Language, 16(5), 494–​541.
Geurts, B. (2019). What’s wrong with Gricean pragmatics. In A. Botinis (Ed.), ExLing 2019: Proceedings of
10th International Conference on Experimental Linguistics (pp. 1–​8). Athens.
Glenberg, A., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-​based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension
and production. Cortex, 48, 905–​922.
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3), 377–​388.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hagoort, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2014). Neuropragmatics. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences
(pp. 667–​674). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hughes, C., Jaffee, S. R., Happé, F., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Origins of individual
differences in theory of mind: From nature to nurture? Child Development, 76(2), 356–​370.
Jary, M. (2016). Rethinking explicit utterance content. Journal of Pragmatics, 102, 24–​37.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2010). Situated temporal reference: A case for compositional pragmatics? Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(11), 2898–​2909.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2019). Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics,
145, 15–​24.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kasher, A., (1991). Pragmatics and Chomsky’s research program. In A. Kasher (Ed.), The Chomskyan turn (pp.
122–​149). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasher, A. (1994). Modular speech act theory: Programme and results. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Foundations
of Speech Act Theory (pp. 312–​322). London: Routledge.
Lepore, E., & Stone, M. (2015). Imagination and convention: Distinguishing grammar and inference in lan-
guage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. J. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interactions
in observational settings (pp. 66–​100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Logan, G. D. (1989). Automaticity and cognitive control. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended
thought (pp. 52–​74). New York/​London: Guilford Press.
Manktelow, K. I., & Over, D. E. (1991). Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals.
Cognition, 39, 85–​105.
Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition: A theory of judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Markovits, H. (2015). Conditional reasoning and semantic memory retrieval. In A. Feeney & V. Thompson
(Eds.), Reasoning as memory (pp. 67–​84). New York: Psychology Press.
Mazzone, M. (2015). Pragmatics and mindreading: Forward and backward inferences in shared intentional
contexts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(3), 289–​307.
Mazzone, M. (2018). Cognitive pragmatics: Mindreading, inferences, consciousness. Boston/​Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
Mazzone, M. (in press). An associative account of inferences: The development towards the prototype. Rivista
Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia.

78
 References

Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection.
Psychological Review, 101, 608–​631.
Parikh, P. (2010). Language and equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reboul, A. (2017). Is implicit communication a way to escape epistemic vigilance? In S. Assimakopoulos
(Ed.), Pragmatics at its interfaces (pp. 91–​112). Boston/​Berlin: De Gruyter.
Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
Recanati, F. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 299–​345.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recanati, F. (2016). Mental files in flux. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosaldo, M. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy.
Language in Society, 11, 203–​237.
Ruffman, T. (2014). To belief or not belief: Children’s theory of mind. Developmental Review, 34(3), 265–​293.
Saul, J. (2002). Speaker meaning, what is said and what is implicated. Nous, 36(2), 228–​248.
Sbisà, M. (2014). Evidentiality and illocution. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(3), 463–​483.
Schneider, K. P., & Ifantidou, E. (Eds.). (2020). Developmental and clinical pragmatics. Boston/​Berlin: De
Gruyter
Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an explanation of behavior? Psychological Science, 3, 150–​161.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/​1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers &
J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought (pp. 184–​200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading. Mind & Language, 17(1–​2), 3–​23.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, XV(44),
117–​149.
Stanley, J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 391–​434.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Wilson, D. (2004). Relevance and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Paper in Linguistics, 16, 343–​360.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Relevance Theory. UCL Working Paper in Linguistics, 14, 249–​287.
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and
social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 358(1413), 593–​602.
Abbott, H. P. (2011). Reading intended meaning where none is intended: A cognitivist reappraisal of the
implied author. Poetics Today, 32(3), 461–​487.
Alber, J., Caracciolo, M., Iversen, S., Kukkonen, K., & Nielsen, H. S. (2018). Introduction. Unnatural and cog-
nitive perspectives on narrative (a theory crossover). Poetics Today, 39(3), 429–​445.
Banks, K. (2018). ‘Look again’, ‘listen, listen’, ‘keep looking’: Emergent properties and sensorimotor
imagining in Mary Oliver’s poetry. In T. Cave & D. Wilson (Eds.), Reading beyond the code: Literature
and relevance theory (pp. 129–​148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barón Palma, E. (2002). Luis Cernuda, poeta: Vida y obra. Sevilla: Alfar.
Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Ad hoc concepts. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language
sciences (pp. 86–​87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernaerts, L., de Geest, D., Herman, L., & Vervaeck, B. (2013). Stories and minds: Cognitive approaches to
literary narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Biebuyck, B., & Martens, G. (2011). Literary metaphor between cognition and narration: The Sandman
revisited. In M. Fludernik (Ed.), Beyond cognitive metaphor theory: Perspectives on literary metaphor (pp.
58–​76). London: Routledge.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Borges, J. L. (1989/​1923). Un patio. In Obras completas (p. 23). Buenos Aires: Emecé.
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J. (Eds.). (2009). Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brooke-​Rose, C. (1958). A grammar of metaphor. London: Secker & Warburg.
Bruhn, M. J. (2011). Introduction: Exchange values: Poetics and cognitive science. Poetics Today, 32(3),
403–​460.
Burke, M., & Troscianko, E. T. (2013). Mind, brain, and literature: A dialogue on what the humanities might
offer the cognitive sciences. Journal of Literary Semantics, 42(2), 141–​148.
Burke, M., & Troscianko, E. (Eds.). (2017). Cognitive literary science: Dialogues between literature and cog-
nition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

79
 References

Camus, A. (1947). La peste. Paris: Gallimard.

Caracciolo, M. (2013). Embodiment at the crossroads: Some open questions between literary interpretation
and cognitive science. Poetics Today, 34(1–​2), 233–​253.
Caracciolo, M. (2016). Creative metaphor in literature. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of metaphor and language (pp. 206–​218). London: Routledge.
Carston, R. (2018). Figurative language, mental imagery, and pragmatics. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3),
198–​217.
Cave, N. (2013). Push the sky away (song). Bad Seed Ltd.
Cave, T. (2014). Introduction. Paragraph, 37(1), 1–​14. (Special Issue Reading Literature Cognitively).
Cave, T., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (2018). Reading beyond the code: Literature and relevance theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Crisp, P. (1996). Imagism’s metaphors—​a test case. Language and Literature, 5(2), 79–​92.
Csabi, S. (Ed.). (2018). Expressive minds and artistic creations: Studies in cognitive poetics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Culler, J. (2002/​1975). Structuralist poetics: Structuralism, linguistics and the study of literature. London:
Routledge.
Culpeper, J., & Semino, E. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Danesi, M. (2017). The bidirectionality of metaphor. Poetics Today, 38(1), 15–​33.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-​evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.
Delbanco, A. (2003). Introduction. In H. Melville, Moby-​Dick or, the Whale (pp. xi–​xxvii). New York:
Penguin.
Eco, U. (1983). The scandal of metaphor: Metaphorology and semiotics. Poetics Today, 4(2), 217–​257.
Ellis, W. D. (Ed.). (1938). A source book of Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fauconnier, G. (2007). Mental spaces. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (2007) (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
cognitive linguistics (pp. 351–​376). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.
Fontanier, P. (1968). Les figures du discours. Paris: Flammarion.
Forceville, C. (2004). Review of ‘The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities’. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(1), 83–​89.
Franchi, S., & G. Güzeldere, G. (Eds.). (1994). Bridging the gap: Where cognitive science meets literary criti-
cism. Stanford, CA: Stanford Humanities Review.
Freeman, M. H. (1995). Metaphor making meaning: Dickinson’s conceptual universe. Journal of Pragmatics,
24(6), 643–​666.
Freeman, M. H. (2002). The body in the word: A cognitive approach to the shape of a poetic text. In J.
Culpeper & E. Semino (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language and cognition in text analysis (pp. 23–​47).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Freeman, M. H. (2009). Minding: Feeling, form, and meaning in the creation of poetic iconicity. In G. Brône
& J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 169–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Freeman, M. H. (2011). The aesthetics of human experience: Minding, metaphor, and icon in poetic expres-
sion. Poetics Today, 32(4), 717–​752.
Freeman, M. H. (2012). Blending and beyond: Form and feeling in poetic iconicity. In I. Jaén & J. J. Simon
(Eds.), Cognitive literary studies: Current themes and new directions (pp. 127–​144). Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2002a). Feeling moved by metaphor. In S. Csabi & J. Zerkowitz (Eds.), Textual secrets: The
message of the medium. Budapest: Eotvos Lorand University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2002b). Identifying and appreciating poetic metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 31(2),
101–​112.
Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Bogdonovich, J. (1999). Mental imagery in interpreting poetic metaphor. Metaphor and
Symbol, 14(1), 37–​44.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gil de Biedma (1968). Poemas póstumos. Madrid: Poesía para todos.
Gil de Biedma (1968/​2013). I will never be young again. Translated by ‘Cleanthess’. www.worldliteratureforum.
com (last accessed May 29, 2019).

80
 References

Giora, R. (2008). Is metaphor unique? In R. W. Gibbs (ed.), pp. 141–​160.

Gleason, D. W. (2009). The visual experience of image metaphor: Cognitive insights into imagist figures.
Poetics Today, 30(3), 423–​470.
Glicksohn, J., & Goodblatt, C. (1993). Metaphor and Gestalt: Interaction theory revisited. Poetics Today,
14(1), 83–​97.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories–​quickly. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge hand-
book of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–​83). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
Goodblatt, C., & Glicksohn, J. (2003). From practical criticism to the practice of literary criticism. Poetics
Today, 24(2), 207–​236.
Goodblatt, C., & Glicksohn, J. (2017). Bidirectionality and metaphor: An introduction. Poetics Today,
38(1), 1–​14.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.),
Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics
Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997 (pp. 101–​124). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Green, M. (2017). Imagery, expression, and metaphor. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 33–​46.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics
(Vol. 3, pp. 41–​58). New York: Academic Press.
Groupe μ. (1970). Rhétorique générale. Paris: Larousse.
Haesaert, W. (2015). Droevig feest: Verzamelde gedichten [‘Sad party. Collected poems’]. Tielt: Lannoo.
Halliwell, S. (1998/​1986). Aristotle’s Poetics. London: Duckworth.
Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe & J. Grady (Eds.), From
perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 1–​12). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Harrison, C., & Stockwell, P. (2014). Cognitive poetics. In J. R. Taylor & J. Littlemore (Eds.), The Bloomsbury
companion to cognitive linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
Herman, D. (Ed.). (2003). Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of
Language and Information.
Herman, D. (2008). Narrative theory and the intentional stance. Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the
History of Ideas, 6(2), 233–​260.
Hogan, P. C. (2003). Cognitive science, literature, and the arts: A guide for humanists. New York: Routledge.
Hogan, P. C. (Ed.). (2011). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Holmes, E., & Mathews, A. (2010). Mental imagery in emotion and emotional disorders. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30, 349–​362.
Hustvedt, S. (2019). Memories of the future. London: Sceptre.
Jackendoff, R., & Aaron, D. (1991). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor by George Lakoff
and Mark Turner (Review). Language, 67(2), 320–​338.
Jackson, T. E. (2000). Questioning interdisciplinarity: Cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and literary
criticism. Poetics Today, 21(2), 319–​347.
Jackson, T. E. (2002). Issues and problems in the blending of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and
literary study. Poetics Today, 23(1), 161–​179.
Jackson, T. E. (2005). Explanation, interpretation, and close reading: The progress of cognitive poetics; cogni-
tive poetics in practice. Poetics Today, 26(3), 519–​533.
Jaén, I., & Simon, J. J. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive literary studies: Current themes and new directions.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Jakobson, R. (1958/​1987). Language in literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, A. (2011). Metaphor. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp.
483–​486). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kukkonen, K. (2019). 4E cognition and eighteenth-​century fiction: How the novel found its feet. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–​
251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

81
 References

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Levinson, J. (2010). Defending hypothetical intentionalism. British Journal of Aesthetics, 50(2), 139–​150.
Lodge, D. (1992/​2011). The art of fiction. London: Vintage.
López Alfonso, F. J. (1994). Hispanoamérica y la modernidad de 1922. Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos,
529(30), 7–​20.
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology,
64(1), 17–​24.
Martens, G., & Biebuyck, B. (2013). Channeling figurativity through narrative: The paranarrative in fiction and
nonfiction. Language and Literature, 22(3), 249–​262.
McGlone, M. S. (2001). Concepts as metaphors. In S. Glucksberg (Ed.), Understanding figurative lan-
guage: From metaphors to idioms (pp. 90–​107). New York: Oxford.
Meheny, H. (1997). Writing cogito. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Melville, H. (1851). Moby-​Dick, or, The Whale. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Montaigne, M. de. (1988). Les essais (Ed. V. L. Saulnier & P. Villey). Paris: PUF.
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking. A dynamic view. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Narayan, S. (2009). The way in which text worlds are furnished: Response to Elena Semino’s ‘text worlds’.
In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 73–​77). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Pilkington, A. (2000). Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Reed, B. (2012). Poetics, Western. In R. Greene et al. (Eds.), Princeton encyclopedia of poetry and poetics (pp.
1058–​1064). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, A. (2006). Cognitive literary criticism. In P. Waugh (Ed.), Literary theory and criticism: An Oxford
guide (pp. 544–​556). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ricœur, P. (1975). La métaphore vive. Paris: Seuil.
Rohrer, T. (2007). The body in space: Dimensions of embodiment. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, & R. M. Frank
(Eds.), Body, language, and mind (pp. 339–​378). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human know-
ledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Semino, E. (2009). Text worlds. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps
(pp. 33–​78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Semino, E., & Steen, G. (2008). Metaphor in literature. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
metaphor and thought (pp. 232–​246). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shen, Y. (2008). Metaphor and poetic figures. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 295–​307). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Snoek, P., & Roggeman, W. M. (Eds.), Holmes, J. S. (Trans.). (1971). A quarter century of poetry from Belgium.
Brussels: Maison internationale de la poésie/​Manteau.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–​105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. (1994). Understanding metaphor in literature: An empirical approach. London: Longman.
Steen, G. (2009). From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps: Analyzing metaphor in poetry. In G.
Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 197–​226). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Steen, G., & Gavins, J. (2003). Cognitive poetics in practice. London: Routledge.
Sternberg, M. (2009). Epilogue. How (not) to advance toward the narrative mind. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele
(Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 455–​532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stockwell, P. (1999). The inflexibility of invariance. Language and Literature, 8(2), 125–​142.
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Sullivan, K. (2007). Grammar in metaphor: A construction grammar account of metaphoric language. Doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Swiggers, P. (1984). Cognitive aspects of Aristotle’s theory of metaphor. Glotta, 62(1/​2), 40–​45.

82
 References

Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. W. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and rele-
vance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–​1864.
Todorov, T. (1977). Théories du symbole. Paris: Seuil.
Troscianko, E. (2014). Kafka’s cognitive realism. London: Routledge.
Tsur, R. (1992). Toward a theory of cognitive poetics. Amsterdam: North-​Holland.
Tsur, R. (2002). Aspects of cognitive poetics. In J. Culpeper & E. Semino (Eds.), Cognitive stylistics: Language
and cognition in text analysis (pp. 279–​318). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsur, R. (2009). Metaphor and figure ground relationship: Comparisons from poetry, music, and the visual arts.
In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 237–​288). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Turner, M. (1987). Death is the mother of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Turner, M. (1990). Poetry: Metaphor and the conceptual context of invention. Poetics Today, 11(3), 463–​482.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1999). A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today, 20(3), 397–​418.
Ulacia, M. (1986). Luis Cernuda: Escritura, cuerpo y deseo. Barcelona: Laia.
Vandaele, J., & Brône, G. (2009). Cognitive poetics. A critical introduction. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.),
Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 1–​29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Veivo, H., Pettersson, B., & Polvinen, M. (2005). Cognition and literary interpretation in practice.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2008). Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance-​theoretic
treatment. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(1), 1–​40.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-​propositional’ effects. Journal of
Pragmatics, 145, 31–​38.
Zhang, Longxi (2011). Poetics. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences
(pp. 631–​632). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zunshine, L. (2006). Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press.
Zunshine, L. (Ed.). (2015) Introduction to cognitive literary studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Antonopoulou, E., & Kiki, N. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-​based
approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–​2609.
Auer, P. (2006). Construction grammar meets conversation: Einige Überlegungen am Beispiel von “so”
Konstruktionen. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 291–​314). Berlin
and New York: De Gruyter.
Baranov, A., & Jörg, J. Z. (2003). Die metaphorische Struktur des öffentlichen Diskurses in Russland und
Deutschland: Perestrojka-​ und Wende-​Periode. In B. Symanzik, G. Birkfellner, & A. Sproede (Eds.),
Metapher, Bild und Figur. Osteuropäische Sprach-​und Symbolwelten (pp. 93–​121). Hamburg: Kovač.
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguis-
tics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.
207–​277). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Situated conceptualization. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categor-
ization in cognitive science (pp. 619–​650). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Blumenberg, H. (1998 [1960]). Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Blumenberg, H. (1971). Beobachtungen an Metaphern. In K. Gründer (Ed.), Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte (pp.
161–​214). Band 15. Bonn: Bouvier.
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1997). A few metaphorical models in (western) economic discourse. In W. A.
Liebert, G. Redeker, & R. W. Linda (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 115–​
129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brandt, L., & Brandt, P. A. (2005). Making sense of a blend. A cognitive-​semiotic approach to metaphor.
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 216–​249.
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor and talk. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 197–​211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L. (2016). Mixed metaphors from a discourse dynamics perspective: A non-​issue? In R. W. Gibbs,
Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphors (pp. 17–​30). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Charteris-​Black, J. (2003). Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in
English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 189–​310.
Charteris-​Black, J. (2016). The ‘dull roar’ and the ‘burning barbed wire pantyhose’: Complex metaphor in
accounts of chronic pain. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphors (pp. 155–​176). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

83
 References

Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 483–​501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W., & Alan Cruse, D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Debatin, B. (1995). Die Rationalität der Metapher. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Deignan, A. (2008). Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
metaphor and thought (pp. 280–​294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A., & Potter, L. (2004). A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian. Journal
of Pragmatics, 36, 1231–​1252.
Denroche, C. (2018). Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor
and the Social World, 8(1), 1–​24.
Deppermann, A. (2006). Deontische Infinitivkonstruktionen: Syntax, Semantik, Pragmatik und interaktionale
Verwendung. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 2339–​2262). Berlin
and New York: De Gruyter.
Dirven, R., Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H.-​G. (2007). Cognitive linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse
analysis. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1222–​1240).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
Fischer, K. (2006). Konstruktionsgrammatik und situationales Wissen. In S. Günthner & W. Imo (eds.),
Konstruktionen in der Interaktion (pp. 343–​363). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Fischer, K. (2015). Conversation, construction grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7, 563–​588.
Forceville, C. (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462–​482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C., & Urios-​Aparisi, E. (2009). Introduction. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal
metaphor (pp. 3–​17). The Hague and Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic
particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–​1778.
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 527–​542.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic
action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–​340.
Hart, C. (2015). Discourse. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 322–​
346). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (2005). Cognition in discourse. In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp.
184–​202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hidalgo-​Downing, L., & Mujic, B. K. (2013). Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse
resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez-​García, M. S. P. Cervel, & L. P.
Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor: Recent
developments and applications (pp. 157–​181). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. Basingstoke
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics,
21(4), 663–​697.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,
9, 37–​79.
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003 [1980]). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
Langlotz, A. (2015). Local meaning-​negotiation, activity types, and the current-​discourse-​space model.
Language and Cognition, 7, 515–​545.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lüdemann, S. (2004). Metaphern der Gesellschaft. Studien zum soziologischen und politischen Imaginären.
München: Wilhelm Fink.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

84
 References

Mittelberg, I. (2017). Experiencing and construing spatial artifacts from within: Simulated artifact immersion
as a multimodal viewpoint strategy. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3), 381–​415.
Mittelberg, I., & Linda, R. W. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-​semiotic approach to
multimodal figures of thought in co-​speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal
metaphor (pp. 329–​355). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mittelberg, I., & Linda, R. W. (2014). Gestures and metonymy. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H.
Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication. An international handbook
on multimodality in human interaction. Vol. 2 (pp. 1747–​1766). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors, dead and alive, sleeping and waking. A dynamic view. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in con-
versational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6, 85–​120.
Musolff, A. (2003). Metaphor scenarios in political discourse in Britain and Germany. In S. Geideck & W.-​
A. Liebert (Eds.), Sinnformeln. Linguistische und soziologische Analysen von Leitbildern Metaphern und
anderen kollektiven Orientierungsmustern (pp. 259–​282). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor and cultural cognition. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in cultural linguistics (pp.
325–​344). Singapore: Springer.
Nikiforidou, K. (2012). The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language
and literature. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp.
177–​196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (2008). Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse.
In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 27–​50). Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Östman, J.-​O., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects, discourse, and construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann &
G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 476–​490). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Parrill, F. (2012). Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-​speech gesture. In B. Dancygier &
E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 97–​112). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pascual, E. (2008). Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard
(Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 79–​107). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-​U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.),
Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–​59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schröder, U. (2012). Kommunikationstheoretische Fragestellungen in der kognitiven Metaphernforschung.
Eine Betrachtung von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Schröder, U. (2015). Metaphorical blends and their function in discourse on society. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 2(1), 50–​78.
Schröder, U., & Mendes, M. C. (2018). ‘The game is rigged’: Framing real life metaphorically in the TV-​epic
‘The Wire’. Text & Talk, 38(1), 47–​68.
Semino, E. (2017). Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cog-
nitive linguistics (pp. 453–​476). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for lin-
guistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2005). The function of metaphor. Developing a corpus-​based perspective. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 161–​198.
Sweetser, E. (2012). Introduction: Viewpoint and perspective in language and gesture, from the ground down.
In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 1–​22).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E., & Stec, K. (2016). Maintaining multiple viewpoints with gaze. In B. Dancygier, L. Weilun, &
A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning (pp. 237–​258). Boston and Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Turner, M. (2015). Blending in language and communication. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive linguistics (pp. 211–​232). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
Ungeheuer, G. (1979). Über das ‘Hypothetische in der Sprache’ bei Lambert. In E. Bülow & P. Schmitter
(Eds.), Integrale Linguistik. Festschrift für Helmut Gipper (pp. 69–​98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vandelanotte, L. (2012). ‘Wait till you got started’: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. In
B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 198–​217).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

85
 References

Wegener, P. (1991 [1885]). Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Weinrich, H. (1976). Sprache in Texten. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.
Zima, E., & Brône, G. (2015). Cognitive linguistics and interactional discourse: Time to enter into dialogue.
Language and Cognition, 7, 485–​498.
Zinken, J., & Musolff, A. (2009). Metaphorical meaning and understanding. In A. Musolff & J. Zinke (Eds.),
Metaphor and discourse (pp. 1–​8). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Armstrong, D. F., Stokoe, W. C., & Wilcox, S. (1995). Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linkstok Press.
Bolinger, D. (1949). The sign is not arbitrary. Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo (= Thesaurus), 5, 52–​62.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–​733.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: J. Murray.
Dotter, F. (2018). Most characteristic elements of sign language texts are intricate mixtures of linguistic and
non-​linguistic parts, aren’t they? Colloquium: New Philologies, 3(1), 1–​62.
Dudis, P. G. (2004). Body partitioning and real-​space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 223–​238.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.),
Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–​130). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of
Language and Information Publications.
Fenlon, J., Cooperrider, K., Keane, J., Brentari, D., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2019). Comparing sign language
and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 2.
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language,
51, 676–​710.
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 515–​540.
Hodge, G., & Johnston, T. (2014). Points, depictions, gestures and enactment: Partly lexical and non-​lexical
signs as core elements of single clause-​like units in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal
of Linguistics, 34, 262–​291.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Janzen, T., & Shaffer, B. (2002). Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In R. Meier,
D. Quinto, & K. Cormier (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 199–​223).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jarque, M. J. (2006). The expression of possibility in Catalan Sign Language: The sign PODER. 5th
International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association (AELCO/​SCOLA). Murcia,
October 19–​21, 2006.
Jarque, M. J., Cordoniu, I., Bosch-​Baliarda, M., Fernández-​Viader, M. D. P., García, C., Serrano, E., &
Segimon, J. (2012). Procesos de lexicalización en la LSC: Procedimientos de combinación. Anuari de
Filologia. Estudis de Lingüistica, 2, 141–​176.
Jarque, M. J., & Pascual, E. (2015). Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language.
eHumanista/​IVITRA, 8, 421–​445.
Jarque, M. J., & Pascual, E. (2016). Mixed viewpoints in factive and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign
Language narratives. In B. Dancygier, W.-​l. Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric
of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 259–​280).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kendon, A. (2017). Languages as semiotically heterogenous systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
40, 30–​31.
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kusters, A., & Sahasrabudhe, S. (2018). Language ideologies on the difference between gesture and sign.
Language and Communication, 60, 44–​63.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Random House.
Lane, H., & Grosjean, F. (1980). Recent perspectives on American Sign Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical foundations. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leeson, L., & Saaed, J. (2004). Windowing of attention in simultaneous constructions in Irish Sign Language
(ISL). Proceedings from High Desert Linguistics Society, Albuquerque, NM.

86
 References

Lepic, R., & Occhino, C. (2018). A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In G. Booij
(Ed.), The construction of words (pp. 141–​172). Berlin: Springer.
Liddell, S. K. (1995). Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In K. Emmorey
& J. Riley (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 19–​41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liddell, S. K. (2000). Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In K. Emmorey & H.
Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp.
303–​320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Long, J. S. (1918). The sign language: A manual of signs. Iowa City: Athens Press.
Martínez, R. A., & Morón Usandivaras, M. (2013). Metonimia e iconicidad cognitiva en señas sustantivas
concretas de la Lengua de Señas Argentina. Signo & Seña, 23, 213–​237.
Martínez, R., & Wilcox, S. (2019). Pointing and placing: Nominal grounding in Argentine Sign Language.
Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 85–​121.
Massone, M. I., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). La metáfora conceptual en el Discurso Político Sordo. In N. G.
Pardo, D. García, T. Oteiza, & M. C. Asqueta (Eds.), Estudios del discurso en América Latina. Homenaje a
Anamaría Harvey (pp. 211–​237). Bogotá: Asociación Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso (ALED).
Meier, R. P., & Lillo-​Martin, D. (2013). The points of language. Humana Mente: Journal of Philosophical
Studies, 24, 151–​176.
Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (1979). Gestures: Their origin and distribution.
New York: Stein and Day.
Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How
language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture, 16(1), 100–​126.
Occhino, C., & Wilcox, S. (2017). Gesture or sign? A categorization problem. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 40.
Okrent, A. (2002). A modality-​free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. ges-
ture question in sign language linguistics (or at least give us some criteria to work with). In R. Meier, K.
Cormier, & D. Quinto-​Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 175–​198).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perniss, P., & Özyürek, A. (2015). Visible cohesion: A comparison of reference tracking in sign, speech, and
co-​speech gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 36–​60.
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence
from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227.
Perniss, P., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of
language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 369.
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2011). Grammaticalization in sign languages. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pizzuto, E. (1987). Aspetti morfosintattici. In V. Volterra (Ed.), La Lingua Italiana dei Segni—​La comunicazione
visivo-​gestuale dei sordi (pp. 179–​209). Bologna: Il Mulino.
Russo, T. (2005). A crosslinguistic, cross-​cultural analysis of metaphors in two Italian Sign Language (LIS)
registers. Sign Language Studies, 5, 333–​359.
Russo, T., Giurana, R., & Pizzuto, E. (2001). Italian Sign Language (LIS) poetry: Iconic properties and struc-
tural regularities. Sign Language Studies, 2, 85–​112.
Sandler, W. (2009). Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica: Journal of the
International Association for Semiotic Studies/​Revue de l’Association Internationale de Sémiotique, 2009,
241–​275.
Shaffer, B., & Janzen, T. (2016). Modality and mood in American Sign Language. In J. Nuyts & J. van der
Auwera (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mood and modality (pp. 448–​469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shaffer, B., Jarque, M. J., & Wilcox, S. (2011). The expression of modality: Conversational data from two
signed languages. In M. T. Nogueira & M. F. V. Lopes (Eds.), Modo e modalidade: gramática, discurso e
interação (pp. 11–​39). Fortaleza: Edições UFC.
Siyavoshi, S. (2019). Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive
Linguistics, 30(4), 655–​686. doi:10.1515/​cog-​2018–​0130
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure. (Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8). Buffalo,
NY: Department of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.
Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D., & Croneberg, C. (1965). A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic
principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.
Taub, S. (2001). Language in the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

87
 References

Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American
Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology –​Learning Memory and
Cognition, 35, 550–​557.
Valli, C., & Lucas, C. (1995). Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). The British Sign Language
(BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1079–​1087.
Wilbur, R. B. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: College-​Hill Press.
Wilcox, P. P. (2000). Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Wilcox, P. P. (2004a). A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics,
15, 197–​222.
Wilcox, S. (2004b). Gesture and language: Cross-​linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture,
4, 43–​75.
Wilcox, S. (2006). Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive
Linguistics, 15, 119–​147.
Wilcox, S. (2009). Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 7, 89–​110.
Wilcox, S. (2019). Kendon’s work on a signed language from the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea: Some
implications. In A. Kendon (Ed.), Sign language in Papua New Guinea: A primary sign language from the
Upper Lagaip Valley, Enga Province. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wilcox, S., & Occhino, C. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages.
Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 371–​404.
Wilcox, S., Rossini, P., & Antinoro Pizzuto, E. (2010). Grammaticalization in sign languages. In D. Brentari
(Ed.), Sign languages (pp. 332–​354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilcox, S., & Shaffer, B. (2017). Evidentiality and information source in signed languages. In A. Y. Aikhenvald
(Ed.), Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilcox, S., & Wilcox, P. P. (2013). Cognitive linguistics and signed languages. International Journal of
Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 127–151.
Wilcox, S., Wilcox, P., & Jarque, M. J. (2003). Mappings in conceptual space: Metonymy, metaphor, and icon-
icity in two signed languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 139–​156.
Xavier, A. N., & Wilcox, S. (2014). Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras).
Linguistic Typology, 18, 449–​488.
Abner, M., Flaherty, M., Stangl, K., Coppola, M., Brentari, D., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2019). The noun-​verb
distinction in established and emergent sign systems. Language, 95(2), 230–​267.
Alibali, M. W., Kita, S., & Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, there-
fore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 593–​613.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, G. (1968). Redundancy and coding. In A. Thomas (Ed.), Animal communication: Techniques of study
and results of research (pp. 614–​626). Sebeok/​Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Baytaş, M. A., Yantaç, A. E., & Fjeld, M. (2017). LabDesignAR: Configuring multi-​camera motion capture
systems in augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on virtual reality software and
technology (Article No. 86, pp. 1–​2). Gothenburg, Sweden.
Bernard, J. A., Millman, Z. B., & Mittal, V. A. (2015). Beat and metaphoric gestures are differentially associated
with regional cerebellar and cortical volumes. Human Brain Mapping, 36(10), 4016–​4030.
Bolt, R. A. (1980). Put that there: Voice and gesture at the graphics interface. In ACM SIGGRAPH’80: Proceedings
of the 7th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (Vol. 14) (pp. 262–​270).
New York.
Bouvet, D. (2001). La dimension corporelle de la parole. Les marques posturo-​mimo-​gestuelles de la parole,
leurs aspects métonymiques et métaphoriques, et leur rôle au cours d’un récit. Paris: Peeters.
Brodie, M., Walmsley, A., & Page, W. (2008). Fusion motion capture: A prototype system using inertial meas-
urement units and GPS for the biomechanical analysis of ski racing. Sports Technology, 1(1), 17–​28.
Butterworth, G., & Morissette, P. (1996). Onset of pointing and the acquisition of language in infancy. Journal
of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 14, 219–​231.
Cadoz, C. (1994). Le geste canal de communication homme/​machine: la communication “instrumentale”.
Technique et Science Informatiques, 13(1), 31–​61.
Camaioni, L., Perucchini, P., Bellagamba, F., & Colonnesi, C. (2004). The role of declarative pointing in
developing a theory of mind. Infancy, 5, 291–​308.
Cienki, A. (2007) Frames, idealized cognitive models, domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170–​187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

88
 References

Cienki, A. J. (2013). Gesture, space, grammar, and cognition. In P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock, &
B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive
perspectives (pp. 667–​686) (Linguae & Litterae No. 24). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 10–​23.
Cochet, H., & Vauclair, J. (2010). Pointing gestures produced by toddlers from 15 to 30 months: Different
functions, hand shapes and laterality patterns. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(4), 431–​441.
Cooperrider, K., & Núñez, R. (2012). Nose-​pointing: Notes on a facial gesture of Papua New Guinea. Gesture,
12(2), 103–​129.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding.
Semiotica, 1, 49–​98.
Enfield, N. J. (2001). ‘Lip-​pointing’: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos.
Gesture, 1(2), 185–​211.
Enfield, N. J., Kita, S., & de Ruiter, J.-​P. (2007). Primary and secondary pragmatic functions of pointing
gestures. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1722–​1741.
Evans, V., Bergen, B., & Zinken, J. (2007). The cognitive linguistics enterprise: An overview. In V. Evans,
B. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (Advances in cognitive linguistics) (pp. 2–​
36). London: Equinox.
Evola, V. (2010). Metafore, sistemi religiosi e semiotica cognitiva multimodale. Discorsi, gestualità e disegni
di predicatori di strada cristiani e di un satanista. Sistemi Intelligenti, 22(1), 23–​48.
Evola, V., & Skubisz, J. (2019). Coordinated collaboration and nonverbal social interactions: A formal and
functional analysis of gaze, gestures, and other body movements in a contemporary dance improvisation
performance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43(4), 451–​479.
Fay, N., Casey, J., Lister, T., Mark, E., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2014). Creating a communication system from
scratch: Gesture beats vocalization hands down. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–​12.
Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Gibson, E. (2015). Large-​scale evidence of dependency length minimization
in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112,
10336–​10341.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.
Goldin-​Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language.
Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257–​283.
Goldin-​Meadow, S., & Brentari, D. (2017). Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language
and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e46.
Goldin-​Meadow, S., So, W., Ozyurek, A., & Mylander, C. (2008). The natural order of events: How speakers
of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 105, 9163–​9168.
Güler, R. A., Neverova, N., & Kokkinos, I. (2018). Densepose: Dense human pose estimation in the wild.
In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 7297–​7306).
Including open-​access code and movement tracked data: http://​densepose.org/​
Hammarström, H. (2016). Linguistic diversity and language evolution. Journal of Language Evolution,
1, 19–​29.
Harrison, S. (2015). The production line as a context for low metaphoricity. Exploring links between gestures,
iconicity, and artefacts on a factory shop floor. In J. B. Herrmann & T. B. Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in
specialist discourse: Investigating metaphor use in technical, scientific and popularized discourse contexts
(pp.131–​161). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hassemer, J. (2016). Towards a theory of gesture form analysis. Imaginary forms as part of gesture con-
ceptualisation, with empirical support from motion-​capture data. Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University.
Including gesture form analysis manuals and templates, open-​access motion-​capture and video data, coded
in gesture form analysis: http://​hdl.handle.net/​11022/​1009–​0000–​0007-​C34C-​8
Hassemer, J., & McCleary, L. (2018). The multidimensionality of pointing. Gesture, 17(3), 417–​463.
Hassemer, J., & Winter, B. (2016). Producing and perceiving gestures conveying height or shape. Gesture,
15(3), 404–​424.
Hassemer, J., & Winter, B. (2018). Decoding gestural iconicity. Cognitive Science, 42, 3034–​3049.
Haviland, J. B. (2013). Where do nouns come from? Gesture, 13, 3.
Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2007). Raise your hand if you’re spatial: Relations between verbal and spa-
tial skills and gesture production. Gesture, 7(1), 73–​95.
Joue, G., Boven, L., Willmes, K., Evola, V., Demenescu, L. R., Hassemer, J., Mittelberg, I., Mathiak, K.,
Schneider, F., & Habel, U. (2018). Handling or being the concept: An fMRI study on metonymy
representations in coverbal gestures. Neuropsychologia, 109, 232–​244.

89
 References

Joue, G., Boven, L., Willmes, K., Evola, V., Demenescu, L. R., Hassemer, J., Mittelberg, I., Mathiak, K.,
Schneider, F., & Habel, U. (2020). Metaphor processing is supramodal semantic processing: The role of
the bilateral lateral temporal regions in multimodal communication. Brain and Language, 205, 104772.
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural lan-
guage processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 247–​279.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, A. (2018). Pragmatic functions of gestures: Some observations on the history of their study and their
nature. Gesture, 16(2), 157–​175.
Kendon, A. (2000). Language and gesture: Unity or duality? In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture
(pp. 47–​63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, A., & Versante, L. (2003). Pointing by hand in ‘Neapolitan’. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where lan-
guage, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 109–​138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kita, S. (Ed.). (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. London: Erlbaum.
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-​linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech
and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of
Memory and Language, 48, 16–​32.
Kita, S., van Gijn, I., & van der Hulst, H. (1998). Movement phases in signs and co-​speech gestures, and their
transcription by human encoders. In I. Wachsmuth & M. Fröhlich (Eds.), Gesture and sign language in
human-​computer interaction (pp. 23–​35). Berlin: Springer.
Krauss, R. M., Chen, Y., & Gottesman, R. F. (2000). Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. In
D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 261–​283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1(1), 39–​74.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford/​New York: Oxford University Press.
Lausberg, H., & Sloetjes, H. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-​ELAN system. Behavior
Research Methods, 41(3), 841–​849.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-​linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom,
M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–​169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Lien, J., Gillian, N., Karagozler, M. E., Amihood, P., Schwesig, C., Olson, E., & Raja, H. (2016). Soli: Ubiquitous
gesture sensing with millimeter wave radar. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(4), 1–​19.
Mandel, M. A. (1977). Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other
hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language (pp. 57–​107). New York: Academic Press.
Mayberry, R. I., & Jaques, J. (2000). Gesture production during stuttered speech: Insights into the nature of
gesture-​speech integration. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 199–​214). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92, 350–​371.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Thought, imagery, and language: How gestures fuel thought and speech. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture and communication. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp.
299–​307). Oxford: Elsevier.
McNeill, D. (2014). Gesture–​speech unity –​ Phylogenesis, ontogenesis, and microgenesis. Language,
Interaction & Acquisition, 5, 137–​184.
Mittelberg, I., & Evola, V. (2014). Iconic and representational gestures. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. L.
Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication. An international handbook
on multimodality in human interaction (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2) (pp.
1732–​1746). Berlin/​Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive semiotic approach to
multimodal figures of thought in co-​speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal
metaphor (pp. 329–​356). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, C. (1998). Redebegleitende gesten. Kulturgeschichte—​theorie—​sprachvergleich. Berlin: Arno Spitz.
Müller, C. (2014). Gestural modes of representation as techniques of depiction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E.
Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body—​language—​communication: An inter-
national handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 2) (pp. 1687–​1702). Berlin/​Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.

90
 References

Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language
and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 1–​49.
Özçalışkan, S., Lucero, C., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2016). Does language shape silent gesture? Cognition,
148, 10–​18.
Poggi, I. (2008). Iconicity in different types of gesture. Gesture, 8, 45–​61.
Rümelin, S., Marouane, C., & Butz, A (2013). Free-​hand pointing for identification and interaction with distant
objects. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive
vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI’13) (pp. 40–​47). Association for Computing Machinery, New York.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C.
Levinson (Eds.), Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language, No. 17. Rethinking linguistic
relativity (pp. 70–​96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. (1997). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 5: Expanding the contexts. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. (2004). From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can child language tell us about language evolu-
tion? In J. Langer, S. T. Parker, & C. Milbrath (Eds.), Biology and knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis
to psychogenesis (pp. 1–​20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994) Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological con-
siderations. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, 487–​505.
Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(2), 145–​171.
Streeck, J. (2008). Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates
during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 154–​186.
Sweetser, E. (2007). Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-​speech gesture as a crucial data source. In
M. Gonzalez-​Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp.
203–​226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language
typology and syntactic description (pp. 36–​149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2018). The targeting system of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tellier, M. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture, 8(2),
219–​235.
Troje, N. F. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait
patterns. Journal of Vision, 2(5), 371–​387.
Trujillo, J. P., Vaitonyte, J., Simanova, I., & Özyürek, A. (2018). Toward the markerless and automatic analysis
of kinematic features: A toolkit for gesture and movement research. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2),
769–​777.
Tscharn, R., Latoschik, M. E., Löffler, D., & Hurtienne, J. (2017). “Stop over there”: Natural gesture and
speech interaction for non-​critical spontaneous intervention in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the
19th ACM international conference (pp. 91–​100). Glasgow.
Umiker-​Sebeok, J., & Sebeok, T. A. (Eds.). (2011). Monastic sign languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Wilkins, D. (2003). Why pointing with the index finger is not a universal (in sociocultural and semiotic
terms). In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 171–​215). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Wundt, W. M. (1904). Völkerpsychologie, erster band: Die sprache, erster teil. Leipzig: W. Engelmann.
Alves, F., Pagano, A., Neumann, S., Steiner, E., & Hansen-​Schirra, S. (2010). Translation units and grammat-
ical shifts: Towards an integration of product-​and process-​based translation research. In G. M. Shreve & E.
Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 109–​142). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Angelone, E. (2010). Uncertainty, uncertainty management, and metacognitive problem solving in the trans-
lation task. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 17–​40). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In M. Baker, G.
Francis, & E. Tognini-​Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 233–​250).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (2000). Linguistic perspectives on translation. In P. France (Ed.), The Oxford guide to literature in
English translation (pp. 20–​26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. (2005). Linguistic models and methods in the study of translation. In H. Kittel, A. P. Frank, N.
Greiner, T. Hermans, W. Koller, J. Lambert, & F. Paul (Eds.), Übersetzung, translation, traduction (pp.
285–​294). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

91
 References

Boas, H. C. (2005). Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases.
International Journal of Lexicography, 18(4), 445–​478.
Boas, H. C. (2009). Recent trends in multilingual lexicography. In Hans C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual
FrameNets: Methods and applications (pp. 1–​36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boas, H. C. (2013). Frame semantics and translation. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive
Linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (pp. 125–​158).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. (2000). A causal model for translation studies. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural
faultlines: Research models in translation studies. Textual and cognitive aspects (pp. 15–​27). Manchester: St.
Jerome.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delisle, J. (1980). L’analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
D’Hulst, L. (1992). Sur le rôle des métaphores en traductologie contemporaine. Target. International Journal
of Translation Studies, 4(1), 33–​51.
Dirven, R., Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H. G. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse
analysis. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1222–​
1240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dragsted, B. (2010). Coordination of reading and writing processes in translation: An eye on uncharted ter-
ritory. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 41–​62). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., & Zenken, J. (2007). The cognitive linguistic enterprise: An overview. In E. Vyvyan, B.
K. Bergen, & J. Zenken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader (pp. 2–​36). London and Oakville: Equinox
Publishing Ltd.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and language: Linguistic theories explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Feist, M. I. (2013). Experimental lexical semantics at the crossroads between languages. In A. Rojo & I.
Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models
and applications (pp. 375–​394). Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.
1–​88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-​and-​frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing
(pp. 55–​81). Dordrecht: North Holland.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica, 6, 222–​254.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-​of-​the-​art review. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–​26.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). Mental models, space, and embodied cognition. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J.
Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 495–​522).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halverson, S. L. (1999a). Conceptual work and the “translation” concept. Target, 11(1), 1–​31.
Halverson, S. L. (1999b). Image schemas, metaphoric processes and the “translate” concept. Metaphor and
Symbol, 14(3), 199–​219.
Halverson, S. L. (2002). Cognitive models, prototype effects and “translation”: The role of cognition in trans-
lation (meta)theory. Across Languages and Cultures, 3(1), 21–​43.
Halverson, S. L. (2003). The cognitive basis of translation universals. Target, 15(2), 197–​241.
Halverson, S. L. (2007). A cognitive linguistic account of translation shifts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics,
21, 105–​119.
Halverson, S. L. (2010). Cognitive translation studies: Developments in theory and method. In G. Shreve & E.
Angelone (Eds.), Translation and cognition (pp. 349–​369). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Halverson, S. L. (2013). Implications of Cognitive Linguistics for translation studies. In A. Rojo & I.
Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models
and applications (pp. 31–​73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Halverson, S. L. (2017). Multimethod approaches. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of
translation and cognition (pp. 195–​212). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London: Routledge.

92
 References

Hatzidaki, A. (2013). A cognitive approach to translation: The psycholinguistic perspective. In A. Rojo & I.
Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models
and applications (pp. 395–​414). Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holmes, J. S. (1972/​2000). The name and nature of translation studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation
studies reader (pp. 172–​184). London and New York: Routledge.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hurtado Albir, A., & Alves, F. (2009). Translation as a cognitive activity. In J. Munday (Ed.), The Routledge
companion to translation studies (pp. 54–​73). London and New York: Routledge.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–​239).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jia, Y., Carl, M., & Wang, X. (2019). How does the post-​editing of neural machine translation compare with
from-​scratch translation? A product and process study. Journal of Specialized Translation, 31, 60–​86.
Kussmaul, P. (2005). Translation through visualization. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/​Meta: Translators’
Journal, 50(2), 378–​391.
Kussmaul, P. (2007). Verstehen und Übersetzen. Ein Lehr-​und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1, 39–​74.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Lewandowska-​Tomaszczyk, B. (2010). Re-​conceptualization and the emergence of discourse meaning as a
theory of translation. In B. Lewandowska-​Tomaszczyk & M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (Vol.
19, pp. 105–​148). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Malmkjær, K. (1992). Reviewing of Translation and Relevance by E. A. Gutt. Mind and Language, 1(3),
298–​309.
Malmkjær, K. (2018). Theories of linguistics and of translation and interpreting. In K. Malmkjær (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of translation studies and linguistics (pp. 15–​30). London and New York: Routledge.
Mandelbit, N. (1996). The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory.
In M. Thelen & B. Lewandowska-​Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning (pp. 483–​495).
Maastricht: Hoogeschool.
Martín de León, C. (2013). Who cares if the cat is on the mat? Contributions of cognitive models of meaning to
translation. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation: Advances in
some theoretical models and applications (pp. 99–​122). Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Muñoz Martín, R. (2010). On paradigms and cognitive translatology. In G. M. Shreve & E. Angelone (Eds.),
Translation and cognition (pp. 169–​187). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Muñoz Martín, R. (2013). More than a way with words: The interface between Cognitive Linguistics and
Cognitive Translatology. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and transla-
tion: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (pp. 75–​98). Berlin and Boston: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Muñoz Martín, R. (2016). Reembedding translation process research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Muñoz Martín, R. (2017). Looking toward the future of cognitive translation studies. In J. W. Schwieter & A.
Ferreira (Eds.), The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 556–​572). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Neubert, A., & Shreve, G. M. (1992). Translation as text: Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures
involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, E. A. (1975). Semantic component in translation theory. In Exploring semantic structures (pp. 179–​185).
München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
Oettinger, A. G. (1960). Automatic language translation: Lexical and technical aspects, with particular refer-
ence to Russian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and language cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary
learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 125–​160).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation and text transfer: An essay on the principles of intercultural communication.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

93
 References

Pym, A. (1995). European translation studies, Une science qui dérange, and Why equivalence needn’t be a
dirty word. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 8(1), 153–​176.
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. London and New York: Routledge.
Risku, H. (2002). Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(3), 523–​533.
Risku, H. (2014). Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-​cognitive
processes. In R. Muñoz Martín (Ed.), Minding Translation (Special Issue No. 1 of MonTI), 331–​353.
Risku, H. (2017). Ethnographies of translation and situated cognition. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Ferreira (Eds.),
The handbook of translation and cognition (pp. 290–​310). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Risku, H., Windhager, F., & Apfelthaler, M. (2013). A dynamic network model of translatorial cognition and
action. Translation Spaces, 2, 151–​182.
Rojo, A. (2002a). Applying frame semantics to translation. Meta, 47, 311–​350.
Rojo, A. (2002b). Frame semantics and the translation of humor. Babel: International Journal of Translation,
48, 34–​77.
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-​Antuñano, I. (2013). Cognitive Linguistics and translation studies: Past, present and
future. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-​Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and translation: Advances in some
theoretical models and applications (pp. 1–​30). Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ross, S. D. (1981). Translation and similarity. In M. G. Rose (Ed.), Translation spectrum: Essays in theory and
practice (pp. 8–​22). Albany: SUNY Press.
Ruiz, C., Paredes, N., Macizo, P., & Bajo, M. T. (2008). Activation of lexical and syntactic target language
properties in translation. Acta Psychologica, 128, 490–​500.
Saldanha, G., & O’Brien, S. (2013). Research methodologies in translation studies. London and
New York: Routledge.
Schwieter, J. W., & Ferreira, A. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of translation and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Blackwell.
Scott, B. (2018). Translation, brains and the computer: A neurolinguistic solution to ambiguity and complexity
in machine translation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Seleskovitch, D. (1968). Interpreting for international conferences. Washington, DC: Pen and Booth.
Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M. (1984). Interpréter pour traduire. Paris: Didier Érudition.
Shreve, G., & Angelone, E. (Eds.). (2010). Translation and cognition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Snell-​Hornby, M. (1988/​1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/​1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stockwell, P. (1999). Towards a critical Cognitive Linguistics. In A. Combrink & I. Bierman (Eds.), Discourses
of war and conflict (pp. 510–​528). Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University Press.
Sun, S., & Xiao, K. (2019). Chinese scholarship in Cognitive Translation Studies. Translation, Cognition &
Behavior, 2(1), 125–​146.
Tabakowska, E. (1993). Cognitive Linguistics and poetics of translation (Vol. 9). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Thomas, S. (1994). Relevance and translation. In Text Linguistics and Translation, a Special Issue of Turjuman,
3(2), 27–​49.
Tirkkonen-​Condit, S. (1992). A theoretic account of translation—​without translation theory. Target, 4(2),
237–​245.
Tirkkonen-​Condit, S. (2002). Metaphoric expressions in the translation process. Across Languages and
Cultures, 3(1), 1010–​116.
Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics,
Tel Aviv University.
Vannerem, M., & Snell-​Hornby, M. (1986). Die Szene hinter dem Text, “scenes-​and framessemantics” in
der Übersetzung. In M. Snell-​Hornby (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft—​ eine Neuorientierung. Zur
Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis (pp. 184–​205). Tübingen: Francke.
Vermeer, H. J., & Witte, H. (1990). Mögen Sie Zistrosen? Scenes & Frames & Channels im translatorischen
Handeln. (TEXTconTEXT. Beiheft 3) Heidelberg: Groos.
Vinay, J.-​P., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/​1995). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de
traduction, Paris: Didier. Translated into English by Juan Sager and M.-​J. Hamel (1995) as Comparative
stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Wen, X., & Xiao, K. (2019). Cognitive Translatology. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Wilss, W. (1982). The science of translation: Problems and methods. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Xiao, K. (2017). Frame operation in poetic translation: A cognitive study on the English translation of clas-
sical Chinese poetry. Beijing: Science Press.

94
 References

Xiao, K., & Wen, X. (2012). Recent developments in cognitive research on translation process. Chinese
Translators Journal, 33(6), 5–​10.
Xiao, K., & Wen, X. (2013). Frame and cognitive operation in translation. Guangyi: Language, Literature and
Culture in Translation, 8, 57–​88.
Yamada, M. (2019). The impact of Google Neural Machine Translation on post-​editing by student translators.
Journal of Specialized Translation, 31, 87–​106.
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (2004). Cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, and foreign language teaching.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Arnett, C., & Deifel, K. (2015). A cognitive linguistic approach to two-​way prepositions in L2 German. In K.
Masuda, C. Arnett, & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications for
second and foreign language teaching (pp. 183–​202). Berlin: De Gryuter.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553–​571.
DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​21.4.553
Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9,
227–​261. DOI: 10.1075/​rcl.9.1.11boe
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration.
Language Teaching, 46, 208–​224. DOI: 10.1017/​S0261444811000450
Broccias, C. (2008). Cognitive linguistic theories of grammar and grammar teaching. In S. DeKnop & A. Der
Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp.
67–​90). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Buescher, K., & Strauss, S. (2015). A cognitive linguistic analysis of French prepositions à, dans, and en
and a sociocultural theoretical approach to teaching them. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett, & A. Labarca (Eds.),
Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications for second and foreign language teaching (pp.
155–​182). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Buescher, K., & Strauss, S. (2018). Conceptual frameworks and L2 pedagogy: The case of French prepositions.
In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-​inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy
(pp. 95–​115). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and
prototypes. In S. D. Knop, F. Boers, & A. D. Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through
cognitive linguistics (pp. 259–​275). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
De Knop, S., & Der Rycker, A. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in
honour of René Dirven. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,
7, 111–​139.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-​based approaches to language acquisition
and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Blackwell.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming,
sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–​200.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and second language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 6–​29.
DOI: 10.1002/​tesq.5
Hymes, D. H. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jacobsen, N. D. (2018). The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach
English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, 39, 668–​693. DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​amw030
Juchem-​Grundmann, C., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Corpus-​informed integration of metaphor in materials for
the business English classroom. In S. D. Knop, F. Boers, & A. D. Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language
teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 317–​335). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kővecses, Z., & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 17, 326–​355.
DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​17.3.326
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
London: Prentice Hall.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40,
59–​81. DOI: 10.2307/​40264511

95
 References

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In R. P. Roberson &
N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–​88).
London: Routledge.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. New York:
Palgrave.
Liu, D. (2010). Going beyond patterns: Involving cognitive analysis in the learning of collocations. TESOL
Quarterly, 44, 4–​30. DOI: 10.5054/​tq.2010.214046
Liu, D., & Zhong, S. (2016). L2 vs. L1 use of synonymy: An empirical study of synonym use/​acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 37, 239–​261. DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​amu022
Lysinger, D. (2015). The case for hidden meaning: An application of cognitive linguistics in the Russian
classroom. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett, & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural
theory: Applications for second and foreign language teaching (pp. 233–​258). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Martínez Vázquez, M. (2008). Constructions in learner language. Circula de Lingűistica Applicata a
Communicación, 36, 40–​62.
Masuda, K., Arnett, C., & Labarca, A. (Eds.). (2015). Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications
for second and foreign language teaching. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Masuda, K., & Labarca, A. (2018). A usage-​based approach for presentation of polysemous particles in JFL
instruction. In K. Masuda (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics and Japanese pedagogy: A usage-​based approach to
language learning and instruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics I: Language pedagogy. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and L2
instruction—​issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and
second language acquisition (pp. 489–​545). London: Routledge.
Saussure, F. (1916). Course de linguistique. Ed. C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (translated as Course in general lin-
guistics by W. Baskin, 1959). New York: Philosophical Library.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
Song, X., Schnotz, W., & Juchem-​Grundmann, C. (2015). A cognitive linguistic approach to teaching
prepositions. In W. Schnotz, A. Kauertz, H. Ludwig, A. Müller, & J. Pretsch (Eds.), Multidisciplinary
research on teaching and learning (pp. 109–​129). New York: Palgrave.
Taylor, J. R. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-​
Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 201–​226). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-​based theory of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Tsai, M. (2020). The effects of explicit instruction on L2 learners’ acquisition of verb–​noun collocations.
Language Teaching Research, 24, 138–​162. DOI: 10.1177/​1362168818795188
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental
evidence. London: Routledge.
Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English
modals. AILA Review, 23, 30–​49. DOI: 10.1075/​aila.23.03tyl
Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to,
for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–​205.
DOI: 10.1075/​aila.23.03tyl
White, B. J. (2012). A conceptual approach to the instruction of phrasal verbs. The Modern Language Journal,
96, 419–​438. DOI: 10.1111/​j.1540–​4781.2012.01365.x
Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 44, 250–​273. DOI: 10.5054/​tq.2010.219945
Achard, M. (1997). Cognitive grammar and SLA investigation. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 11, 157–​
176. DOI: 10.1109/​ICMLA.2010.113
Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–​455). New York and
London: Routledge.
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign lan-
guage teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

96
 References

Barcelona, A. (2010). Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review, 23, 134–​154.
DOI: 10.1075/​aila.23.08bar
Boers, F. (2000a). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes,
19(2), 137–​147. DOI: 10.1016/​s0889–​4906(98)00017–​9
Boers, F. (2000b). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553–​571.
DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​21.4.553
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English
Language Teaching Journal, 52(3), 197–​203. DOI: 10.1093/​elt/​52.3.197
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language
instruction: Rationale, proposals and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Archard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz
de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305–​355).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). (Eds.) Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and
phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boers, F., & Littlemore, J. (Eds.). (2003). Cross-​cultural differences in conceptual metaphor: Applied linguis-
tics perspectives. Metaphor and Symbol (Special Issue), 18(4). DOI: 10.1093/​elt/​52.3.197
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425−455.
DOI: 10.1080/​01690969508407111
Bybee, J. (2006). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-​based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–​236). New York and
London: Routledge.
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.). (2016). Applied construction grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Ruiter, L., & Theakston, A. (2017). First language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge hand-
book of cognitive linguistics (pp. 59–​72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The development of relative constructions in early child speech. Cognitive
Linguistics, 12, 97–​141.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language struc-
ture. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–​68).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). (Guest Eds.). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive
Linguistics (Special Issue), 7. DOI: 10.1075/​arcl.7.05ell
Ellis, N. C., & Fernando-​Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distri-
bution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–​386. DOI: 10.1111/​j.1540–​4781.2009.00896.x
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Second language acquisition. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive linguistics (pp. 409–​432). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-​word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second
language acquisition from the perspective of usage-​based linguistics. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.),
Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes (pp. 86–​99).
Joensuu, Finland: Joensuu University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The
case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64(3), 501–​538. DOI: 10.2307/​414531
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming,
sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–​200. DOI: https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​
arcl.3.10gri
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-​linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 163–​186. DOI: 10.1075/​arcl.7.07gri
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holme, R. (2010a). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 23, 115–​133.
DOI: 10.1075/​aila.23.07hol
Holme, R. (2010b). A construction grammar for the classroom. IRAL, 48, 355–​377. DOI: 10.1515/​iral.2010.015

97
 References

Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 6–​29.
DOI: 10.1002/​tesq.5
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers.
Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–​445. DOI: 10.1111/​j.1540–​4781.2007.00589.x
Jing-​Schmidt, Z. (2015). The place of linguistics in CSL teaching and teacher education: Toward a usage-​based
constructionist theoretical orientation. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 50(3), 1–​22.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,
9, 37–​79. DOI: 10.1515/​cogl.1998.9.1.37
Kövecses, Z., & Szabo, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326–​
355. DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​17.3.326
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-​based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-​based model
of language (pp. 1–​37). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–​88). New York and
London: Routledge.
Lieven, E., Salomo, D., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-​year-​old children’s production of multiword utterances: A
usage-​based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 481–​507. DOI: 10.1515/​COGL.2009.022
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-​based perspective. In
P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.
168–​196). New York and London: Routledge.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Littlemore, J., & Grundmann, C. J. (Eds.). (2010). Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning
and teaching. AILA Review (Special Issue), 23(1). DOI: https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​aila.23
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Luo, H. (2017). English transitive particle verbs: Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 4, 330–​354. DOI: info:doi/​10.1075/​cogls.00008.luo
Luo, H. (2019). Particle verbs in English: A cognitive linguistic perspective. Singapore: Springer.
Maclenman, C. H. G. (1994). Metaphors and prototypes in the learning and teaching of grammar and vocabu-
lary. IRAL, 32(1), 97–​110. DOI: 10.1515/​iral.1994.32.2.97
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-​representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions
of the Philological Society, 102, 139–​168. DOI: 10.1111/​j.0079–​1636.2004.00133.x
Ortega, L. (2015). Usage-​based SLA: A research habitus whose time has come. In T. Cadierno & S. W.
Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-​based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 353–​368). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Pütz, M. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1139–​1159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition.
New York: Routledge.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 104, 192–​233. DOI: 10.1037/​0096–​3445.104.3.192
Rudzka-​Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Slabakova, R., Cabrelli Amaro, J., & Kang, S. K. (2016). Regular and novel metonymy: Can you curl up with a
good Agatha Christie in your second language? Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 175–​197. DOI: 10.1093/​applin/​
amu003
Sung, M., & Yang, H. (2016). Effects of construction-​centered instruction on Korean students’ learning of
English transitive resultative constructions. In S. De Knop & G. Gulquin (Eds.), Applied construction
grammar (pp. 89–​114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, J. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In R. Geiger & B. Rudzka-​Ostyn
(Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing of language (pp. 201–​223). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-​based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

98
 References

Tomasello, M. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and first language acquisition. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1092–​1112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2015). The usage-​based theory of language acquisition. In E. Bavin & L. Naigles (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 89–​106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental
evidence. New York: Routledge.
Tyler, A. (2017). Second language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 73–​90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language,
77(4), 724−765. DOI: 10.2307/​3086846
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, cognition and the experi-
ential basis of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A., Huang, L., & Jan, H. (Eds.). (2018). What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA
research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English
prepositions to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. VIGO International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 8, 181−206.
Tyler, A., & Ortega, L. (Guest Eds.). (2016). Usage-​based approaches to language and language learning.
Language and Cognition (Special Issue), 8(4). DOI: 10.1017/​langcog.2016.15
Verspoor, M. H., & Hong, N. (2008). Cognitive grammar and teaching English articles to Asian students. In
J. R. Lapaire (Ed.), From grammar to mind: Grammar as cognition (pp. 249–​268). Bordeaux: Presses
Universitaires de Bordeaux.
Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547–​586.
DOI: 10.1111/​1467–​9922.00234
Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). A cognitive linguistics application for second language
pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2), 438–​468. DOI: 10.1111/​lang.12278
Yu, N., & Wang, B. P.-​Y. (2018). Cognitive linguistics approach to Chinese second language acquisition. In
Chuanren Ke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Chinese second language acquisition (pp. 31–​47). London
and New York: Routledge.
Abdelzaher, E. M. (2017). Compiling a cognition-​based thematic monolingual lexicon: The case of violence.
Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 4(2), 313–​329. DOI: 10.1075/​cogls.00007.abd
Abdelzaher, E., & Tóth, Á. (2020). Defining crime: A multifaceted approach based on lexicographic relevance
and distributional semantics. Argumentum, 16, 44–​63. DOI: 10.34103/​argumentum/​2020/​4
Atkins, S., & Bouillon, P. (2006). Relevance in dictionary making: Sense indicators in the bilingual entry. In L.
Bowker (Ed.), Lexicography, terminology, and translation: Text-​based studies in honour of Ingrid Meyer
(pp. 25–​43). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Doi: https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​j.ctt1ckpgs3.6.
Atkins, B. S., & Rundell, M. (2008). The Oxford guide to practical lexicography. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Atkins, S., Rundell, M., & Sato, H. (2003). The contribution of FrameNet to practical lexicography.
International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 333–​357. DOI: 10.1093/​ijl/​16.3.333
Bagasheva, A. (2011). Contrastive word-​formation and lexicography: Compound verbs in English and
Bulgarian. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics PSiCL, 47(1), 844–​872.
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1, 86–​90.
Boas, H. C. (2001). Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of
English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. Proceedings of Corpus
Linguistics, 113, 64–​73.
Bogaards, P. (2013). A history of research in lexicography. In H. Jackson (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to
lexicography (pp. 19–​32). London: Bloomsbury.
Cinková, S., & Hanks, P. (2010). Validation of corpus pattern analysis—​assigning pattern numbers to random
verb samples. http://​ufal.mff.cuni.cz/​spr/​data/​publications/​annotation_​manual.pdf
Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–​491.
Dai, Y., Wu, Z., & Xu, H. (2019). The effect of types of dictionary presentation on the retention of meta-
phorical collocations: Involvement load hypothesis vs. cognitive load theory. International Journal of
Lexicography, 32(4), 411–​431.
Dalpanagioti, T. (2018a). Corpus-​based cognitive lexicography: Insights into the meaning and use of the verb
stagger. Proceedings of XVIII EURALEX International Congress, 649–​662.
Dalpanagioti, T. (2018b). A frame-​semantic approach to co-​occurrence patterns: A lexicographic study of
English and Greek motion verbs. International Journal of Lexicography, 31(4), 420–​451.

99
 References

Dalpanagioti, T. (2019). From corpus usages to cognitively informed dictionary senses: Reconstructing an
MLD entry for the verb float. Lexicography, 6(2), 75–​104.
De Schryver, G. M., Chishman, R., & da Silva, B. (2019). An overview of digital lexicography and directions
for its future: An interview with Gilles-​Maurice de Schryver. Calidoscópio, 17(3), 659–​683.
Dodge, E., Hongb, J., Stickles, E., & Davidab, O. (2013). The MetaNet Wiki: A collaborative online resource
for metaphor and image schema analysis. 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. https://​sites.
ualberta.ca/​~iclc2013/​ABSTRACTS/​Dodge_​et_​al.pdf
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics,
41(1), 33–​75.
Fellbaum, C. (2014). Large-​scale lexicography in the digital age. International Journal of Lexicography, 27(4),
378–​395.
Fillmore, C., & Baker, C. (2011). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–​340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuertes-​Olivera, P. A., & Tarp, S. (2011). Lexicography for the third millennium: Cognitive-​oriented specialised
dictionaries for learners. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 21,
141–​161.
Fuertes-​Olivera, P. A., & Velasco-​Sacristan, M. (2012). Translation metaphor in business/​economics dictionary
articles: What the theory says and what the lexicographers should do. In H. Herrera-​Soler & M. White
(Eds.), Metaphors and mills: Figurative language in business and economics (pp. 155–​173). Berlin and
Boston: De Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Introduction: Prospects and problems of Prototype Theory. Linguistics, 27(4), 587–​612
Geeraerts, D. (1990). Homonymy, iconicity, and prototypicality. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 5(1), 49–​74.
Geeraerts, D. (2001). The definitional practice of dictionaries and the cognitive semantic conception of poly-
semy. Lexicographica, 17, 6–​21.
Geyken, A. (2015). Lexicogrammatical patterns and corpus evidence in Schemann’s dictionary of idioms.
International Journal of Lexicography, 28(3), 299–​317.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gorbis, B. (2006). Cognitive dictionary: A representation of shared reality. Proceedings of the 50th Annual
Meeting of the ISSS-​2006, 1–​11.
Grady, J. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 188–​213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grochocka, M. (2008). The usefulness of the definitions of abstract nouns in OALD7 and NODE. Poznań
Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 44(4), 469–​501.
Hahn, U., & Chater, N. (1998). Similarity and rules: Distinct? exhaustive? empirically distinguishable?
Cognition, 65(2–​3), 197–​230.
Halas, A. (2016). The application of the Prototype Theory in lexicographic practice: A proposal of a model for
lexicographic treatment of polysemy. Lexikos, 26(1), 124–​144.
Hargraves, O. (2018). Information retrieval for lexicographic purposes. In P. Feurtes-​Olivera (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 701–​714). London and New York: Routledge.
Horak, A., & Rambousek, A. (2018). Lexicography and natural language processing. In P. Feurtes-​Olivera
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 179–​198). London and New York: Routledge.
Hornby, A. (1942). Idiomatic and syntactic English dictionary. Tokyo: Institute for Research in Language
Teaching.
Hümmer, C., & Stathi, K. (2006). Polysemy and vagueness in idioms: A corpus-​based analysis of meaning.
International Journal of Lexicography, 19(4), 361–​377.
Hung, B. P. (2019). A cognitive linguistic approach to teaching English idioms to EFL students: Experimental
results. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 25(2), 113–​126.
Jackson, H. (2018). English lexicography in the internet era. In P. Feurtes-​Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge hand-
book of lexicography (pp. 540–​553). London and New York: Routledge.
Jiang, G., & Chen, Q. (2017). A micro exploration into learner’s dictionaries: A prototype theoretical perspec-
tive. International Journal of Lexicography, 30(1), 108–​139.
Keysar, B., & Bly, B. M. (1999). Swimming against the current: Do idioms reflect conceptual structure?
Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1559–​1578.
Kilgarriff, A., & Kosem, I. (2012). Corpus tools for lexicographers. In S. Granger and M. Paqout (Eds.),
Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-​Verlag.
Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbol, 6(1), 29–​47. DOI: 10.1207/​
s15327868ms0601_​2

100
 References

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive
Science, 4(2), 195–​208.
Leech, G. (1993). Longman Language Activator. London: Longman.
Leroyer, P. (2018). Dictionaries for text reception. In P. Feurtes-​Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lexi-
cography (pp. 250–​266). London and New York: Routledge.
Lew, R. (2013). Identifying, ordering and defining senses. In H. Jackson (Ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to
lexicography (pp. 284–​302). London: Bloomsbury.
Litkowski, K. (2014). Pattern dictionary of English prepositions. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of
the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1274–​1283.
Lu, H., & Wei, X. (2019). Structuring polysemy in English learners’ dictionaries: A prototype theory-​based
model. International Journal of Lexicography, 32(1), 20–​37.
Mheta, G. (2017). A cognitive analysis of metaphor in Shona terminological dictionaries. Southern African
Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 35(3), 311–​320.
Miller, J. (2018). Learners’ dictionaries of English. In P. Feurtes-​Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of
lexicography (pp. 353–​366). London and New York: Routledge.
Molina, C. (2008). Historical dictionary definitions revisited from a prototype theoretical standpoint. Annual
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 1–​22.
Moon, R. (2015). Idioms: A view from the web. International Journal of Lexicography, 28(3), 318–​337.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2000). Semantic fields and frames: Historical explorations of the interface
between language, action, and cognition. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(2), 125–​150.
Nesi, H. (2012). Alternative e-​dictionaries: Uncovering dark practices. In S. Granger and M. Paqout (Eds.),
Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ostermann, C. (2015). Cognitive lexicography: A new approach to lexicography making use of cognitive
semantics. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
Peters, P., & Fernadez, T. (2018). Lexicography and applied linguistics. In P. Feurtes-​Olivera (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 105–​122). London and New York: Routledge.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor
and Symbol, 22(1), 1–​39.
Ramonda, K. (2016). A bone of contention: Teacher beliefs on the pedagogical value of English idioms for
second language learners. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 16(2), 131–​143.
Rundell, M. (2012). The road to automated lexicography: An editor’s viewpoint. In S. Granger & M. Paqout
(Eds.), Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-​Petruck, M., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet
II: Extended theory and practice. https://​ids-​pub.bsz-​bw.de/​frontdoor/​deliver/​index/​docId/​5415/​file/​
Ruppenhofer_​Ellsworth_​Petruck_​Johnson_​Scheffczyk_​FrameNet_​II_​Extended_​Theory_​and_​Practice_​
2010.pdf
Scholfield, P. (1993). Longman Language Activator. London: Longman.
Siqueira, M., de Oliveira, A. F. S., Hubert, D. D., de Almeida, G. F., & Brangel, L. M. (2009). Metaphor iden-
tification in a terminological dictionary. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines
Específicos, 17, 157–​174.
Steen, G. (2002). Towards a procedure for metaphor identification. Language and Literature, 11(1), 17–​33.
Storjohann, P. (2017). Cognitive descriptions in a corpus-​based dictionary of German paronyms. Yearbook of
the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 5(1), 115–​126.
Toth, A. (2008). Perspectives on the lexicon. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Van der Meer, G. (1999). Metaphors and dictionaries: The morass of meaning, or how to get two ideas for one.
International Journal of Lexicography, 12(3), 195–​208.
Vasiljevic, Z. (2011). Using conceptual metaphors and L1 definitions in teaching idioms to non-​native speakers.
Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(3), 135–​160.
Xu, H., & Lou, Y. (2015). Treatment of the preposition to in English learners’ dictionaries: A cognitive
approach. International Journal of Lexicography, 28(2), 207–​231.
Yang, X. (2015). A cognitive poetic approach to the function of metaphor. Advances in Literary Study, 3, 84–​88.
Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through conceptual metaphors: A case of Japanese EFL learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 250–​273. DOI: 10.5054/​tq.2010.219945
Yelena, Y. A., & Natal’ya, Z. A. (2015). Metaphorization of eating in the imagery of the Russian language.
Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Filologiya-​Tomsk State, 35(3), 107–​121.
Arutyunova, N. D. (1990). Metaphor and discourse. In Metaphor theory (pp. 5–​32). Moscow: Progress.
[Арутюнова, Н. Д. Метафора и дискурс. In Теория метафоры. Москва: Прогресс.]
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.

101
 References

Black, М. (1962). Metaphor. In М. Black, Models and metaphor: Studies in language and philosophy (pp.
25–​47). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Diaz-​Vera, J. E. (Ed.). (2014). Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures: Perspectives on the
sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language. (Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR] 52). Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Geererts, D. (2006). A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic
readings (pp. 1–​28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kravchenko, A. V. (2004). Language and perception: Cognitive aspects of language categorization.
Irkutsk: Irkutsk State University Publishing House. [Кравченко, А. В. Язык и восприятие: Когнитив­
ные аспекты языковой категоризации. Иркутск: Издательство Иркутского государственного
университета.]
Kubryakova, E. S. (1978). Parts of speech in onomasiological interpretation. Moscow: Nauka. [Кубрякова, Е.
С. Части речи в ономасиологическом освещении. Москва: Наука.]
Kubryakova, E. S. (2004). On guidelines of cognitive science and topical problems of cognitive linguis-
tics. Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki, 1, 6–​17. [Кубрякова, Е. С. Об установках когнитивной науки и
актуальных проблемах когнитивной лингвистики. In Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики.]
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lapshina, M. N. (1996). Semantic derivation in cognitive aspect (based on English). Unpublished postdoc-
toral thesis, St. Petersburg State University. [Лапшина, М. Н. Семантическая деривация в когнитив­
ном аспекте (на материале английского языка): Диссертация на соискание ученой степени доктора
филологических наук.]
Lazurenko, A. Ya. (1979). Metaphoric transposition in French word formation. (Unpublished doctoral thesis).
Moscow: Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages. [Лазуренко А. Я. Метафорический
перенос в словообразовании французского языка. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени
кандидата филологических наук.]
Lederman, S. J. (1982). The perception of texture by touch. In Tactual perception: A sourcebook (pp. 130–​
167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacCormac, E. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maslova, V. A. (2017). Introduction to cognitive linguistics. Moscow: FLINTA. [Маслова В. А. Введение в
когнитивную лингвистику. Москва: ФЛИНТА.]
Ortega-​y-​Gasset, J. (1990). Two great metaphors. In Metaphor theory (pp. 68–​81). Moscow: Progress. [Ортега-​
и-​Гассет, Х. Две великие метафоры. Теория метафоры. Москва: Прогресс.]
Panasenko, N. (2010). Phytonymic lexicon in the system of Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages (ono-
masiological and cognitive analysis). Cherkassy: Brama-​Ukrayina. [Панасенко Н. Фитонимическая
лексика в системе романских, германских и славянских языков (опыт ономасиологического и
когнитивного анализа). Черкассы: Брама-​Украина.]
Panasenko, N. (2012a). Direct and indirect designation in medicinal plants’ names. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 2(18), 217–​233.
Panasenko, N. (2012b). Tactile information processing channel in the plants’ names. Acta Facultatis
Philosophicae Universitatis Prešoviensis. Jazykovedný zborník, 41, 128–​153. Prešov: Filozoficka fakulta
Prešovskej University.
Panasenko, N. (2016). Metaphoric and metonymic designation of poisonous medicinal plants. In A. Uberman
& T. Hrehovcik (Eds.), Text—​ sentence—​ word. Studies in English linguistics. Vol. II (pp. 64–​74).
Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Panasenko, N. (2019). Evaluative component in Slavic phytonyms. The Way of Science. International Scientific
Journal, 11(69), 104–​108. [Панасенко Н. Оценочный компонент в славянских фитонимах. Путь
науки. Международный научный журнал.]
Panther, K.-​U. (2014). Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive
morphology and syntax. In G. Drożdż & A. Łyda (Eds.), Extension and its limits (pp. 10–​38). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Panther, K.-​U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. (Human Cognitive Processing
4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-​U. & Thornburg, L. L. (2017). Metaphor and metonymy in language and thought: A cognitive lin-
guistic approach. Synthesis Philosophica, 64(2), 271–​294.
Petrov, V. V. (1988). Language and logical theory: In search of new paradigm. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2, 39–​
48. [Петров, В. В. Язык и логическая теория: в поисках новой парадигмы. Вопросы языкознания.]
Plotnikova, L. I. (2006). Word-​forming structure of a new Russian word as a representative of its conceptual
setup. Newsletter of Lugansk National Pedagogical University, 11(106), 109–​116. [Плотникова, Л. И.
Словообразовательная структура нового русского слова как репрезентант его концептуальной орга­
низации. Вісник Луганського національного педагогічного університету.]

102
 References

Richards, I. A. (1950). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robertson, J. (2008). Colchicum autumnale, autumn crocus, naked ladies. www.thepoisongarden.co.uk/​atoz/​
colchicum_​autumnale.htm (accessed June 10, 2019).
Rudakova, A. V. (2002). Cogitology and cognitive linguistics. Voronezh: Voronezh State University. [Рудакова
А. В. Когнитология и когнитивная лингвистика. Воронеж: Воронежский Государственный Униве­р­
ситет]
Ruzin, V. G. (1994). Cognitive strategies of naming: Рerception modi (vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste) and
their expression in language. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 6, 79–​100. [Рузин И.Г. Когнитивные стратегии
именования: модусы перцепции (зрение, слух, осязание, обоняние, вкус) и их выражение в языкe.
Вопросы языкознания.]
Selivanova, O. O. (1999). Topical trends of modern linguistics (analytical review). Kyiv: Ukrainian
Phytosociological Centre Publishing House. [Селіванова О.О. Актуальні напрями сучасної лінгвістики
(аналітичний огляд). Київ: Видавництво Українського фітосоціологічного центру.]
Abd-​Essalam, A., & Zaghlul, M. S. (Eds.). (1988). Kita:b jamharatu ‘al-​‘amṯa:l. Beirut: Dar al-​Ilmiyya.
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign
language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language
Journal, 86(4), 525–​545.
At Mensur, R. (2010). Dictionnaire de proverbes kabyles. Tizi-​Ouzou: Editions Achab.
Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Belkhir, S. (2012). Variation in source and target domain mappings in English and Kabyle dog proverbs. In
S. Kleinke, Z. Kövecses, A. Musolff, & V. Szelid (Eds.), Cognition and culture: The role of metaphor and
metonymy (pp. 213–​227). Budapest: Eötvös University Press.
Belkhir, S. (2014). Cultural influence on the use of dog concepts in English and Kabyle proverbs. In A.
Musolff, F. MacArthur, & G. Pagani (Eds.), Metaphor and intercultural communication (pp. 131–​145).
London: Bloomsbury.
Belkhir, S. (2019). Animal-​related concepts across languages and cultures from a cognitive linguistic perspec-
tive. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(2), 295–​324. https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​cogls.00042.bel
Belkhir, S. (Ed.). (2020) Cognition and language learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Cameron, L., & Low, G. (Eds.). (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Camps, G., Musso, J. Cl., & Chaker, S. (1988). Ane. In G. Camps (Ed.), Encyclopédie berbère, 5, 647–​657.
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fergusson, R. (2000). The Penguin dictionary of proverbs. London: Penguin Books.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ghazala, H. (2011). Cognitive stylistics and the translator. London: Sayyab Books.
Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haji, M., & Al-​Akhdar, M. (Eds.). (1981). Zahr ’al ’akam fi ’al-​’amṯa:l wa ’al-​ḥikam. Morocco: Dar Athaqafa.
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive linguistics and language teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holme, R. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 6–​29.
Ibrahim, A. A. M. (Ed.). (1996). Majma‘u ’al-​’amṯa:l. Beirut: Dar Al-​ji:l.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–​
251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor
and thought (pp. 17–​38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

103
 References

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Integrating sociocultural theory and cognitive linguistics in the second language class-
room. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp.
303–​318). London and New York: Routledge.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Manser, M. H. (2007). Facts on File dictionary of proverbs. New York: Facts on File.
Matlin, M. W. (2005). Cognition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Montreynaud, F., Pierron, A., & Suzonni, F. (Eds.). (1993). Dictionnaire des proverbes et dictons. Paris: Le
Robert.
Nacib, Y. (2009). Proverbes et dictons kabyles. Alger: Enag.
Orthony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2001). Applied cognitive linguistics: Language pedagogy (Vol.
2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pütz, M., & Sicola, L. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s
mind. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Qatamish, A. M. (1988a). ’al-​’amṯa:l al-​‘arabiyya, dira:sa ta:rixiyya taḥli:liyya. Syria: Da:r ’al-​fikr.
Qatamish, A. M. (Ed.). (1988b). ’aḏarra ’al-​fa:xira fi: ’al-​’amṯa:l ’assa:’ira. Cairo: Dar Al-​Maarif.
Rey, A., & Chantreau, S. (Eds.). (1985). Dictionnaire des expressions et locutions. Paris: Le Robert
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition.
London and New York: Routledge.
Schwieter, J. W., & Ferreira, A. (Eds.) (2017). The handbook of translation and cognition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Blackwell.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London and New York: Routledge.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Summers, D. (Ed.). (2005). Longman dictionary of English language and culture. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, J. R., & Littlemore, J. (2014). The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics. London and
New York: Bloomsbury.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-​J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Verspoor, M. H. (2017). Cognitive linguistics and its applications to second language teaching. In J. Cenoz, D.
Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (pp. 55–​66). Cham: Springer.
Vigerie, P. (1992). La symphonie animale. Les animaux dans les expressions de la langue française.
Paris: Larousse.
Wilson, F. P. (1970). Oxford dictionary of English proverbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, R. A., & Keil, F. C. (1999). The MIT encyclopaedia of cognitive sciences. Cambridge, MA and
London: MIT Press.
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn
semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463–​498.
Arnal, L. H., Poeppel, D., & Giraud, A. L. (2016). A neurophysiological perspective on speech processing. In
G. Hickok & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 463–​478). New York: Elsevier.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–​645.
Barsalou, L. W. (2016). Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Y. Coello & M. H. Fischer
(Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition. Vol. 1: Perceptual and emotional embodiment (pp. 11–​37).
New York: Psychology Press.
Binder, J. R. (2017). Current controversies on Wernicke’s area and its role in language. Current Neurology
Neuroscience Report, 17(8), 58.
Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Science,
15(11), 527–​536.
Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical
review and meta-​analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–​2796.
Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., Westbury, C. F., Liebenthal, E., & Buchanan, L. (2006). Tuning of the human left
fusiform gyrus to sublexical orthographic structure. NeuroImage, 33(2), 739–​748.
Bonner, M. F., Peelle, J. E., Cook, P. A., & Grossman, M. (2013). Heteromodal conceptual processing in the
angular gyrus. NeuroImage, 71, 175–​186.

104
 References

Borghi, A. M., Barca, L., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Pezzulo, G., & Tummolini, L. (2019). Words as social
tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts. Physics in Life Review, 29, 120–​153.
Brennan, J., Nir, Y., Hasson, U., Malach, R., Heeger, D. J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2012). Syntactic structure building
in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening. Brain and Language, 120, 163–​173.
Chang, E. F., Rieger, J. W., Johnson, K., Berger, M. S., Barbaro, N. M., & Knight, R. T. (2010). Categorical
speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Nature Neuroscience, 13(11), 1428–​1432.
Chen, L., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). A unified model of human semantic knowledge and
its disorders. Nature Human Behavior, 1(3).
Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 15, 254–​262.
Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 335–​341.
Dell, G. S., Martin, N., & Schwartz, M. F. (2007). A case-​series test of the interactive two-​step model of lexical
access: Predicting word repetition from picture naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4), 490–​520.
Dell, G., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and
nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104(4), 801–​838.
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Nozari, N., Faseyitan, O., & Branch Coslett, H. (2013). Voxel-​based lesion-​
parameter mapping: Identifying the neural correlates of a computational model of word production.
Cognition, 128(3), 380–​396.
Den Ouden, D. B., Malyutina, S., Basilakos, A., Bonilha, L., Gleichgerrcht, E., Yourganov, G., et al. (2019).
Cortical and structural-​connectivity damage correlated with impaired syntactic processing in aphasia.
Human Brain Mapping, 40(7), 2153–​2173.
Desai, R., Conant, L. L., Binder, J. R., Park, H., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). A piece of the action: Modulation
of sensory-​motor regions by action idioms and metaphors. NeuroImage, 83, 862–​869.
Desai, R., Liebenthal, E., Waldron, E., & Binder, J. R. (2008). Left posterior temporal regions are sensitive to
auditory categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(7), 1174–​1188.
Desai, R. H., Reilly, M., & Van Dam, W. (2018). The multifaceted abstract brain. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B Biological Science, 373(1752).
Dove, G. (2014). Thinking in words: Language as an embodied medium of thought. Topics in Cognitive
Science, 6(3), 371–​389.
Dronkers, N. F., Wilkins, D. P., Van Valin, R. D., Jr., Redfern, B. B., & Jaeger, J. J. (2004). Lesion analysis of
the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition, 92(1–​2), 145–​177.
Faroqi-​Shah, Y., Kling, T., Solomon, J., Liu, S. Y., Park, G., & Braun, A. (2014). Lesion analysis of language
production deficits in aphasia. Aphasiology, 28(3), 258–​277.
Fernandino, L., Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Pendl, S. L., Humphries, C. J., Gross, W. L., et al. (2016). Concept
representation reflects multimodal abstraction: A framework for embodied semantics. Cerebral Cortex,
26(5), 2018–​2034.
Friederici, A. D. (2012). The cortical language circuit: From auditory perception to sentence comprehension.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(5), 262–​268.
Gerlach, C. (2007). A review of functional imaging studies on category specificity. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 19(2), 296–​314.
Geschwind, N . (1970). The clinical syndromes of the cortical connections. Modern Trends in Neurology, 5, 29–​40.
Giussani, C., Riva, M., Gallucci, M., Boukhatem, L., Sganzerla, E. P., Demonet, J. F., et al. (2011). Anatomical
correlates for category-​specific naming of living and non-​living things. NeuroImage, 56, 323–​329.
Glezer, L. S., Jiang, X., & Riesenhuber, M. (2009). Evidence for highly selective neuronal tuning to whole
words in the “visual word form area”. Neuron, 62(2), 199–​204.
Hagoort, P. (2016). MUC (Memory, Unification, Control): A model on the neurobiology of language beyond
single word processing. In G. Hickok & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 339–​347). Salt
Lake City: American Academic Press.
Hagoort, P. (2019). The neurobiology of language beyond single-​word processing. Science, 366(6461), 55–​58.
Hagoort, P., & Indefrey, P. (2014). The neurobiology of language beyond single words. Annual Review
Neuroscience, 37, 347–​362.
Haller, S., Radue, E. W., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. (2005). Overt sentence production in event-​related
fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 807–​814.
Hamilton, L. S., Edwards, E., & Chang, E. F. (2018). A spatial map of onset and sustained responses to speech
in the human superior temporal gyrus. Current Biology, 28(12), 1860–​1871.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
8(5), 393–​402.
Hoffman, P., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2018). From percept to concept in the ventral temporal lobes: Graded
hemispheric specialisation based on stimulus and task. Cortex, 101, 107–​118.

105
 References

Humphries, C., Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., & Liebenthal, E. (2006). Syntactic and semantic modulation
of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(4),
665–​679.
Hurley, R. S., Paller, K. A., Rogalski, E. J., & Mesulam, M. M. (2012). Neural mechanisms of object naming
and word comprehension in primary progressive aphasia. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(14), 4848–​4855.
Indefrey, P. (2011). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components: A critical update.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 255.
Indefrey, P., Brown, C. M., Hellwig, F., Amunts, K., Herzog, H., Seitz, R. J., et al. (2001). A neural correlate
of syntactic encoding during speech production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 98(10), 5933–​5936.
Kearney, E., & Guenther, F. H. (2019). Articulating: The neural mechanisms of speech production. Language,
Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1214–​1229.
Kemmerer, D. (2015). Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices?
Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1068–​1075.
Kiefer, M., & Pulvermuller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments,
current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–​825.
Kousta, S.-​T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of
abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–​34.
Lakoff, G. (2009). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor
and thought (pp. 17–​38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leff, A. P., Schofield, T. M., Crinion, J. T., Seghier, M. L., Grogan, A., Green, D. W., et al. (2009). The
left superior temporal gyrus is a shared substrate for auditory short-​term memory and speech comprehen-
sion: Evidence from 210 patients with stroke. Brain, 132(Pt. 12), 3401–​3410.
Levelt, W. J. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(23), 13464–​13471.
Levelt, W. J. M. (2013). A history of psycholinguistics: The pre-​ Chomskyan era. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–​75.
Lyu, B., Choi, H. S., Marslen-​Wilson, W. D., Clarke, A., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2019). Neural dynamics
of semantic composition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
116(42), 21318–​21327.
Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? Language Cognition & Neuroscience, 30(4), 420–​429.
Mano, Q. R., Humphries, C., Desai, R. H., Seidenberg, M. S., Osmon, D. C., Stengel, B. C., et al. (2013). The
role of left occipitotemporal cortex in reading: Reconciling stimulus, task, and lexicality effects. Cerebral
Cortex, 23(4), 988–​1001.
Matchin, W., & Hickok, G. (2020). The cortical organization of syntax. Cerebral Cortex 30(3), 1481–​1498.
Matchin, W., Liao, C. H., Gaston, P., & Lau, E. (2019). Same words, different structures: An fMRI investiga-
tion of argument relations and the angular gyrus. Neuropsychologia, 125, 116–​128.
McCandliss, B. (2003). The visual word form area: Expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 7, 293–​299.
Mesulam, M. M., Rogalski, E. J., Wieneke, C., Hurley, R. S., Geula, C., Bigio, E. H., et al. (2014). Primary pro-
gressive aphasia and the evolving neurology of the language network. Nature Reviews Neurology, 10(10),
554–​569.
Mesulam, M. M., Wieneke, C., Hurley, R., Rademaker, A., Thompson, C. K., Weintraub, S., et al. (2013).
Words and objects at the tip of the left temporal lobe in primary progressive aphasia. Brain: A Journal of
Neurology, 136(Pt. 2), 601–​618.
Mesulam, M., Wieneke, C., Rogalski, E., Cobia, D., Thompson, C., & Weintraub, S. (2009). Quantitative tem-
plate for subtyping primary progressive aphasia. Archives of Neurology, 66(12), 1545–​1551.
Mirman, D., Landrigan, J. F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 143(5), 499–​520.
Nelson, M. J., El Karoui, I., Giber, K., Yang, X., Cohen, L., Koopman, H., et al. (2017). Neurophysiological
dynamics of phrase-​structure building during sentence processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 114(18), E3669–​E3678.
Obleser, J., Meyer, L., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Dynamic assignment of neural resources in auditory com-
prehension of complex sentences. NeuroImage, 56(4), 2310–​2320.
Okada, K., & Hickok, G. (2006). Left posterior auditory-​related cortices participate both in speech perception
and speech production: Neural overlap revealed by fMRI. Brain and Language, 98(1), 112–​117.

106
 References

Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 5(2), 205–​230.
Patterson, K., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Woollams, A., Hodges, J. R., & Rogers, T. T. (2006).
“Presemantic” cognition in semantic dementia: Six deficits in search of an explanation. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 169–​183.
Pillay, S. B., Binder, J. R., Humphries, C., Gross, W. L., & Book, D. S. (2017). Lesion localization of speech
comprehension deficits in chronic aphasia. Neurology, 88(10), 970–​975.
Purcell, J. J., Turkeltaub, P. E., Eden, G. F., & Rapp, B. (2011). Examining the central and peripheral processes
of written word production through meta-​analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 239.
Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of
semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–​55.
Rapcsak, S. Z., Beeson, P. M., Henry, M. L., Leyden, A., Kim, E., Rising, K., Andersen, S., & Cho, H.
(2009). Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia: Cognitive mechanisms and neural substrates. Cortex,
45, 575–​591.
Rogalsky, C., & Hickok, G. (2011). The role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 23(7), 1664–​1680.
Rogalsky, C., LaCroix, A. N., Chen, K. H., Anderson, S. W., Damasio, H., Love, T., et al. (2018). The neuro-
biology of agrammatic sentence comprehension: A lesion study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(2),
234–​255.
Sapolsky, D., Bakkour, A., Negreira, A., Nalipinski, P., Weintraub, S., Mesulam, M. M., et al. (2010). Cortical
neuroanatomic correlates of symptom severity in primary progressive aphasia. Neurology, 75(4), 358–​366.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete
words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 114–​126.
Schwartz, M. F., Kimberg, D. Y., Walker, G. M., Faseyitan, O., Brecher, A., Dell, G. S., et al. (2009). Anterior
temporal involvement in semantic word retrieval: Voxel-​based lesion-​symptom mapping evidence from
aphasia. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 132(Pt. 12), 3411–​3427.
Seghier, M. L. (2013). The angular gyrus: Multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. Neuroscientist,
19(1), 43–​61.
Snijders, T. M., Vosse, T., Kempen, G., Van Berkum, J. J., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2009). Retrieval
and unification of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An FMRI study using word-​category
ambiguity. Cerebral Cortex, 19(7), 1493–​1503.
Stefanatos, G. A. (2008). Speech perceived through a damaged temporal window: Lessons from word deafness
and aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29(3), 239–​252.
Thothathiri, M., Kimberg, D. Y., & Schwartz, M. F. (2012). The neural basis of reversible sentence comprehen-
sion: Evidence from voxel-​based lesion symptom mapping in aphasia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
24(1), 212–​222.
Tranel, D. (2009). The left temporal pole is important for retrieving words for unique concrete entities.
Aphasiology, 23, 867.
Tremblay, P., & Dick, A. S. (2016). Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language
neurobiology. Brain and Language, 162, 60–​71.
Turken, A. U., & Dronkers, N. F. (2011). The neural architecture of the language comprehension net-
work: Converging evidence from lesion and connectivity analyses. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 5, 1.
Tyler, L. K., Marslen-​Wilson, W. D., Randall, B., Wright, P., Devereux, B. J., Zhuang, J., Papoutsi, M., &
Stamatakis, E. A. (2011). Left inferior frontal cortex and syntax: Function, structure and behaviour in
patients with left hemisphere damage. Brain, 134, 415–​431.
Vigneau, M., Beaucousin, V., Herve, P. Y., Duffau, H., Crivello, F., Houde, O., et al. (2006). Meta-​analyzing left
hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1414–​1432.
Vinckier, F., Dehaene, S., Jobert, A., Dubus, J. P., Sigman, M., & Cohen, L. (2007). Hierarchical coding of
letter strings in the ventral stream: Dissecting the inner organization of the visual word-​form system.
Neuron, 55, 143–​156.
Walenski, M., Europa, E., Caplan, D., & Thompson, C. K. (2019). Neural networks for sentence comprehen-
sion and production: An ALE-​based meta-​analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 40(8),
2275–​2304.
Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and con-
crete concepts: A meta-​analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10), 1459–​1468.
Wilson, S. M., Brambati, S. M., Henry, R. G., Handwerker, D. A., Agosta, F., Miller, B. L., Wilkins, D. P.,
Ogar, J. M., & Gorno-​Tempini, M. L. (2009). The neural basis of surface dyslexia in semantic dementia.
Brain, 132, 71–​86.
Wilson, S. M., Henry, M. L., Besbris, M., Ogar, J. M., Dronkers, N. F., Jarrold, W., et al. (2010). Connected
speech production in three variants of primary progressive aphasia. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 133(Pt.
7), 2069–​2088.

107
 References

Wright, P., Randall, B., Clarke, A., & Tyler, L. K. (2015). The perirhinal cortex and conceptual processing: Effects
of feature-​based statistics following damage to the anterior temporal lobes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 192–​207.
Yi, H. G., Leonard, M. K., & Chang, E. F. (2019). The encoding of speech sounds in the superior temporal
gyrus. Neuron, 102(6), 1096–​1110.
Allan, K. (2007). The Western classical tradition in linguistics. London: Equinox.
Armstrong, D. F., & Wilcox, S. E. (2007). The gestural origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bateson, P., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Tinbergen’s four questions: An appreciation and an update. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 28(12), 712–​718.
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bichakjian, B. H. (2017). Language evolution: How language was built and made to evolve. Language
Sciences, 63, 119–​129.
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Bickerton, D. (1998). Catastrophic evolution: The case for a single step from protolanguage to full human lan-
guage. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-​Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language
(pp. 341–​358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bickerton, D. (2014). More than nature needs: Language, mind, and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Breed, M. D., & Moore, J. (2016). Animal behavior (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.
Burling, R. (2000). Comprehension, production, and conventionalization in the origins of language. In C.
Knight, M. Studdert-​Kennedy, & J. Hurford (Eds.), The emergence of language: Social function and the
origins of linguistic form (pp. 27–​39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burling, R. (2005). The talking ape: How language evolved. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (1998). A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution. Evolution of Communication, 2(2),
249–​278.
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–​733.
Cameron, M., & Stainton, R. J. (2015). Introduction. In M. Cameron & R. J. Stainton (Eds.), Linguistic con-
tent: New essays on the history of philosophy of language (pp. 1–​15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, L. (2001). The history of linguistics. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-​Miller (Eds.), The handbook of lin-
guistics (pp. 81–​104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cangelosi, A., ‎Smith, A. D. M., & ‎Smith, K. (Eds.). (2006). The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 6th
Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG6). Singapore: World Scientific.
Cartwright, J. (2016). Evolution and human behaviour: Darwinian perspectives on the human condition (3rd
ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Catania, A. C. (2001). Three varieties of selection and their implications for language origins. In G. Győri
(Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 55–​71). Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Language evolution as cultural evolution: How language is shaped
by the brain. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1, 623–​628. doi: 10.1002/​wcs.85
Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). A solution to the logical problem of language evolution: Language
as an adaptation to the human brain. In K. R. Gibson & M. Tallerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of lan-
guage evolution (pp. 626–​639). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). On the representation of form and function. The Linguistic Review, 1(1), 3–​40.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA and
London: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2009). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought (3rd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2010). Some simple evo devo theses: How true might they be for language? In R. K. Larson, V.
Déprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 45–​62).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2015). The language faculty that wasn’t: A usage-​based account of natural
language recursion. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2015.01182
Corballis, M. C. (2003). From mouth to hand: Gesture, speech, and the evolution of right-​handedness.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(2), 199–​208.
Corballis, M. C. (2017). Language evolution: A changing perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(4)
229–​236.
Croft, W. (2013). Language use and the evolution of languages. In P. Binder & K. Smith (Eds.), The language
phenomenon (pp. 93–​120). Berlin: Springer.

108
 References

Croft, W. (2017). Evolutionary complexity of social cognition, semasiographic systems, and language. In S.
S. Mufwene, F. Pellegrino, & C. Coupbe (Eds.), Complexity in language: Developmental and evolutionary
perspectives (pp. 101–​134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csányi, V. (1992). The brain’s models. In T. A. Sebeok & J. Umiker-​Sebeok (Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic
web (pp. 27–​43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Csányi, V. (2001). An ethological reconstruction of the emergence of culture and language during human evo-
lution. In G. Győri (Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp.
43–​53). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Dąbrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology,
6. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2015.00852
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-​evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
de Boer, B. (2017). Evolution of speech and evolution of language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 158–​
162. doi: 10.3758/​s13423-​016-​1130-​6
de Grolier, É. (Ed.). (1983). Glossogenetics: The origin and evolution of language. Proceedings of the
International Transdisciplinary Symposium on Glossogenetics. Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic linguistic theory. Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). Theory of mind and the evolution of language. In J. Hurford, M. Studdert-​Kennedy,
& C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language (pp. 92–​110). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 32, 163–​181. doi: 10.1146/​annurev.anthro.32.061002.093158
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance
for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 472–​492.
Fedurek, P., & Slocombe, K. E. (2011). Primate vocal communication: A useful tool for understanding human
speech and language evolution? Human Biology, 83(2), 153–​173. doi: 10.3378/​027.083.0202
Fitch, W. T. (2010). The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foolen, A. (2002). Language origins and sexual selection. In H. Jacobs & L. Wetzels (Eds.), Liber Amicorum
Bernard Bichakjian (pp. 37–​58). Maastricht: Shaker.
Friederici, A. D. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Cooperation and the evolution of symbolic communication. In D. K. Oller & U. Griebel
(Eds.), The evolution of communication systems: A comparative approach (pp. 237–​256). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gärdenfors, P., & Osvath, M. (2010). Prospection as a cognitive precursor to symbolic communication. In R.
K. Larson, V. Dépre, & H. Yamokido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives
(pp. 103–​114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 3–​21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T. (1998). On the co-​evolution of language, mind and brain. Evolution of Communication, 2(1), 45–​116.
Givón, T. (2002). The visual information-​processing system as an evolutionary precursor of human language.
In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-​language (pp. 3–​50). Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-​cognition, evolution.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (2013). On the intellectual roots of functionalism in linguistics. In S. T. Bischoff & C. Jany (Eds.),
Functional approaches to language (pp. 9–​30). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2015). Studying the mechanisms of language learning by varying the learning envir-
onment and the learner. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(8), 899–​911. doi: 10.1080/​
23273798.2015.1016978

109
 References

Griffiths, P. E. (2002). What is innateness? The Monist, 85(1), 70–​85.

Győri, G. (1995). Animal communication and human language: Searching for their evolutionary relationship.
In S. Puppel (Ed.), The biology of language (pp. 99–​125). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Győri, G. (1997). Cognitive archaeology: A look at evolution outside and inside language. In R. Blench &
M. Spriggs (Eds.), Archaeology and language I: Theoretical and methodological orientation (pp. 43–​52).
London and New York: Routledge.
Győri, G. (1999). Evolutionary continuity and the rate and curve of language evolution. Evolution of
Communication, 3(2), 207–​226.
Győri, G. (2001a). Symbolic cognition: Its evolution and adaptive impact. In G. Győri (Ed.), Language evolu-
tion: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 113–​129). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Győri G. (Ed.). (2001b). Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Győri, G. (2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–​166.
Harnad, S. (2005). To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.),
Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 20–​43). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Harnad, S. R., Steklis, H. D., & Lancaster, J. (Eds.). (1976). Origins and evolution of language and speech.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol. 280. New York Academy of Sciences.
Harris, R. (2001). Wittgenstein’s ‘Private Language Argument’ and theories of the origin of language. In G.
Győri (Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 221–​246).
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Hewes, G. (1973). Primate communication and the gestural origin of language. Current Anthropology, 14, 5–​24.
Hewes, G. (1992). History of glottogonic theories. In J. Wind, B. Chiarelli, B. Bichakjian, & A. Nocentini
(Eds.), Language origin: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 3–​20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hogan, J. A. (2001). Development of behavior systems. In E. M. Blass (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral neuro-
biology. Vol. 13: Developmental psychobiology (pp. 229–​279). New York: Kluwer Academic/​Plenum
Publishers.
Hogan, J. A. (2015). A framework for the study of behavior. Behavioural Processes, 117, 105–​113.
Hurford, J. R. (2011). Linguistics from an evolutionary point of view. In R. Kempson, T. Fernando, & N.
Asher (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Vol. 14: Philosophy of linguistics (pp. 473–​498).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hurford, J. R. (2014). Origins of language: A slim guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2010). Your theory of language evolution depends on your theory of language. In R. K. Larson,
V. Déprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 63–​
72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johansson, C. (2001). Emergence of language structure and learnability. In G. Győri (Ed.), Language evolu-
tion: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 155–​171). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Johansson, S. (2005). Origins of language: Constraints on hypotheses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Johansson, S. (2014). Did language evolve incommunicado? In E. A. Cartmill, S. Roberts, H. Lyn, & H.
Cornish (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on the Evolution of
Language (EVOLANG10) (pp. 130–​137). Singapore: World Scientific.
Johansson, S. (2016). Protolanguage possibilities in a construction grammar framework. In S. G. Roberts,
C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. Barceló-​Coblijn, O. Fehér, & T. Verhoef (Eds.), The evolution of lan-
guage: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG11)
(pp. 157–​162). Singapore: World Scientific.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2018). Embodiment of language. In A. Newen, L. De Bruin, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of 4e cognition (pp. 623–​640). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Joseph, J. E. (2016). Structural linguistics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp. 431–​
446). London and New York: Routledge.
Kemmerer, D. (2015). Cognitive neuroscience of language. New York: Psychology Press.
Kendon, A. (2017). Reflections on the “gesture-​first” hypothesis of language origins. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 24(1), 163–​170. doi: 10.3758/​s13423–​016-​1117-​3
Kinsella, A. R. (2009). Language evolution and syntactic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirby, S., Dowman, M., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007). Innateness and culture in the evolution of language.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(12), 5241–​5245.
doi: 10.1073_​pnas.0608222104

110
 References

Krill, A. L., Platek, S. M., Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Where evolutionary psychology meets
cognitive neuroscience: A précis to evolutionary cognitive neuroscience. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(1),
232–​256.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive
Linguistics, 1(1), 39–​74.
Lakoff, G. (1991). Cognitive versus generative linguistics: How commitments influence results. Language and
Communication, 11(1–​2), 53–​62.
Lamarque, P. V. (1997). Philosophy of language. In P. V. Lamarque (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of philosophy
of language (pp. 1–​9). Oxford: Pergamon.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2010). Control and the mind/​body duality: Knowing vs. effecting. In E. Tabakowska, M.
Choiński, & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp.
163–​207). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Langendoen, D. T. (1998). Linguistic theory. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive
science (pp. 235–​244). Oxford: Blackwell.
Levinson, S. C., & Holler, J. (2014). The origin of human multi-​modal communication. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369. doi: 10.1098/​rstb.2013.0302
Lieberman, P. (2006). Toward an evolutionary biology of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Lieberman, P. (2016). The evolution of language and thought. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 94,
127–​146.
Loritz, D. (1999). How the brain evolved language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lotem, A., Halpern, J. Y., Edelman, S., & Kolodny, O. (2017). The evolution of cognitive mechanisms in
response to cultural innovations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 114(30), 7915–​7922. doi: 10.1073/​pnas.1620742114
Mackenzie, J. L. (2016). Functional linguistics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp.
470–​484). London and New York: Routledge.
MacNeilage, P. F. (2008). The origin of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mameli, M. (2007). Evolution and psychology in a philosophical perspective. In L. Barrett & R. Dunbar (Eds.),
Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 21–​34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matthews, P. (2001). A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1997). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McMahon, A. M. S. (1994). Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMahon, A., & McMahon, R. (2013). Evolutionary linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNeill, D. (2012). How language began: Gesture and speech in human evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Morford, J. P., & Goldin-​Meadow, S. (2001). Time and again: Displaced reference in the communication
of linguistic isolates. In G. Győri (Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical
perspectives (pp. 173–​197). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mufwene, S. S. (2013). The origins and evolution of language. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the
history of linguistics (pp. 13–​52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Pinker, S. (2003). Language as an adaptation to the cognitive niche. In S. Kirby & M. Christiansen (Eds.),
Language evolution: States of the art (pp. 16–​37). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–​236.
Pleyer, M. (2012). Cognitive construal, mental spaces and the evolution of language and cognition. In T. C. Scott-​
Phillips, M. Tamariz, E. A. Cartmill, & J. R. Hurford (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 9th
Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG9) (pp. 288–​295). Singapore: World Scientific.
Pleyer, M. (2017). Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction. Language Sciences,
63, 69–​90.
Pleyer, M., & Hartmann, S. (2014). A matter of perspective: Viewpoint phenomena in the evolution of grammar.
In E. A. Cartmill, S. Roberts, H. Lyn, & H. Cornish (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the
10th Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG10) (pp. 90–​105). Singapore: World Scientific.

111
 References

Pleyer, M., & Hartmann, S. (2019). Constructing a consensus on language evolution? Convergences and
differences between biolinguistic and usage-​based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi: 10.3389/​
fpsyg.2019.02537
Pleyer, M., & Lindner, N. (2014). Constructions, construal and cooperation in the evolution of language. In
E. A. Cartmill, S. Roberts, H. Lyn, & H. Cornish (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the
10th Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG10) (pp. 244–​251). Singapore: World Scientific.
Pleyer, M., & Winters, J. (2014). Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research. Theoria
et Historia Scientiarum, 11, 19–​44. doi: 10.12775/​ths-​2014–​002
Plotkin, H. (2007). The power of culture. In L. Barrett & R. Dunbar (Eds.), Oxford handbook of evolutionary
psychology (pp. 11–​19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poeppel, D., & Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience, In A. Cutler (Ed.),
Twenty-​first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 103–​118). New York: Psychology Press.
Puppel, S. (Ed.). (1995). The biology of language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Quiatt, D., & Reynolds, V. (1993). Primate behaviour: Information, social knowledge, and the evolution of
culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ristau, C. A. (2013). Cognitive ethology. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 493–​509. doi: 10.1002/​wcs.1239
Sadowski, P. (2009). From interaction to symbol: A systems view of the evolution of signs and communication.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of linguistics: Competition and evolution. London: Hutchinson.
Schmid, H.-​J. (2012). Linguistic theories, approaches and methods. In M. Middeke, T. Müller, C. Wald, & H. Zapf
(Eds.), English and American studies: Theory and practice (pp. 371–​394). Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler.
Schoenemann, P. T. (2017). A complex-​adaptive-​systems approach to the evolution of language and the brain.
In S. S. Mufwene, F. Pellegrino, & C. Coupbe (Eds.), Complexity in language: Developmental and evolu-
tionary perspectives (pp. 67–​100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schumann, J. H. (2007). A linguistics for the evolution and neurobiology of language. Journal of English
Linguistics, 35(3), 278–​287.
Scott-​Phillips, T. C. (2008). On the correct application of animal signalling theory to human communication. In
A. D. M. Smith, K. Smith, & R. Ferrer i Cancho (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference (EVOLANG7) (pp. 275–​282). Singapore: World Scientific.
Scott-​Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate-​proximate dis-
tinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–​47.
Seuren, P. A. M. (2016). Saussure and his intellectual environment. History of European Ideas, 42(6), 819–​847.
doi: 10.1080/​01916599.2016.1154398
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2017). Precursors to language: Social cognition and pragmatic inference in
primates. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 79–​84. doi: 10.3758/​s13423-​016-​1059-​9
Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinha, C. (2004). The evolution of language: From signals to symbols to system. In D. K. Oller & U. Griebel
(Eds.), The evolution of communication systems: A comparative approach (pp. 217–​235). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Sinha, C. (2009). Language as a biocultural niche and social institution. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New
directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 289–​309). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Slocombe, K. E., Waller, B. M., & Liebal, K. (2011). The language void: The need for multimodality in primate
communication research. Animal Behaviour, 81, 919–​924.
Smit, H. (2016). The transition from animal to linguistic communication. Biological Theory, 11, 158–​172.
doi: 10.1007/​s13752–​016-​0246-​2
Smith, K. (2018). How culture and biology interact to shape language and the language faculty. Topics in
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 690–​712. doi: 10.1111/​tops.12377
Sterelny, K. (2012). Language, gesture, skill: The co-​evolutionary foundations of language. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2141–​2151. doi: 10.1098/​rstb.2012.0116
Tallerman, M. (2014). No syntax saltation in language evolution. Language Sciences, 46, 207–​219. doi: 10.1016/​
j.langsci.2014.08.002
Taylor, J. R. (2014). Cognitive linguistics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp. 455–​
469). London and New York: Routledge.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard
University Press.

112
 References

Újhelyi, M., & Buk, P. (2001). On the origins of syntactically structured vocalizations in primates. In G. Győri
(Ed.), Language evolution: Biological, linguistic and philosophical perspectives (pp. 101–​111). Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (2001). Functional linguistics. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-​Miller (Eds.), The handbook of
linguistics (pp. 319–​336). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Vicari, G., & Adenzato, M. (2014). Is recursion language-​specific? Evidence of recursive mechanisms in the
structure of intentional action. Consciousness and Cognition, 26, 169–​188.
von Raffler-​Engel, W., Wind, J., & Jonker, A. (Eds.). (1991). Studies in language origins. Vol. 2. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wasow, T. (2001). Generative Grammar. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-​Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics
(pp. 295–​318). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wind, J., Jonker, A., Allott, R., & Rolfe, L. (Eds.). (1994). Studies in language origins. Vol. 3. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wind, J., Pulleybank, E. G., de Grolier, É., & Bichakjian, B. H. (Eds.). (1989). Studies in language origins. Vol.
1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Zlatev, J. (2005). What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (Ed.),
From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 313–​342). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Zlatev, J. (2008). From proto-​mimesis to language: Evidence from primatology and social neuroscience.
Journal of Physiology–​Paris, 102, 137–​151.
Zlatev, J., Persson, T., & Gärdenfors, P. (2005). Bodily mimesis as “the missing link” in human cognitive evo-
lution. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 121.
Backus, A., Doğruöz, S., & Heine, B. (2011). Salient stages in contact-​induced grammatical change: Evidence
from synchronic vs. diachronic contact situations. Language Sciences, 33(5), 738–​752.
Barðdal, J. (2007). The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North)
Germanic. Functions of Language, 14(1), 9–​30.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic
assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.),
Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–​49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (2008). Introduction: Constructions and language change. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald
(Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 1–​21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beuls, K., & van Trijp, R. (2016). Computational construction grammar and constructional change. Belgian
Journal of Linguistics, 30, 1−13.
Bisang, W. (1998) Grammaticalization and language contact, constructions and positions. In A. Giacalone
Ramat & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), The limits of grammaticalization (pp. 13−58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S. (Eds.). (2018). Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phe-
nomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Booij, G. (Ed.). (2018). The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions
of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363−382.
Bybee, J. (2003a). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph & R. D.
Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602−623). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, J. (2003b). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology
of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol. 2 (pp. 145−167). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colleman, T. (2016). A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emer-
ging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-​away construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 91–​113.
Colleman, T. (2018). Distributional assimilation in constructional semantics: On contact-​related semantic
shifts in Afrikaans three-​argument constructions. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in
contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 143–​177).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in
the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–​209.
Colleman, T., & Noël, D. (2012). The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of
Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–​28.

113
 References

Colleman, T., & Noël, D. (2014). Tracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy
copying. In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker, & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics (pp. 213–​
236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
David, O. (2015). Clitic doubling and differential object marking: A study in diachronic construction grammar.
Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 103–​135.
Davies, M., & Kim, J.-​B. (2019). Historical shifts with the into-​causative construction in American English.
Linguistics, 57(1), 29–​58.
DeLancey, S. (1994). Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. In J. Gomez & D. Rood (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 1993 Mid-​America Linguistics Conference (pp. 1–​22). Boulder: Department of Linguistics, University
of Colorado.
De Smet, H. (2016). How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation.
Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 83–​102.
D’hoedt F., De Smet H., & Cuyckens, H. (2019). Constructions waxing and waning: A diachronic overview of
the zero-​Secondary Predicate Construction. Journal of English Linguistics, 47(1), 3–​28.
Doğruöz, S., & Backus, A. (2009). Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of on-​going con-
tact induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–​63.
Fanego, T. (2019). A construction of independent means: The history of the way construction revisited. English
Language and Linguistics, 23(3), 671–​699.
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fischer, O. (2013). The role of contact in English syntactic change in the Old and Middle English periods.
In D. Schreier & M. Hundt (Eds.), English as a contact language (pp. 18–​40). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fonteyn, L. (2017). The aggregate and the individual: Thoughts on what non-​alternating authors reveal about
linguistic alternations—​a response to Petré. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 251–​262.
Fried, M. (2009). Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 1(2),
262–​291.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1990). Constructional borrowing and the process of factorization. Unpublished manuscript.
www.princeton.edu/​~adele/​papers/​Papers/​Finished/​Yiddish.doc (accessed September 7, 2019).
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
7, 219–​224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gyselinck, E. (2020). (Re)shaping the constructional network: Modelling shifts and reorganizations in the net-
work hierarchy. The intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction in 19th–​20th century Dutch. In L.
Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and links in the network: Advances in Diachronic Construction
Grammar (pp. 107–​140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and
syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson,
& J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–​39). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K.
Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–​257).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Höder, S. (2014). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli & B.
Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–​152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hoffmann, S., & Mukherjee, J. (2007). Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-​
linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 32(1), 5–​24.
Ingham, R. (accepted). The Middle English prepositional dative: Contact with French. In M. Röthlisberger, E.
Zehentner, & T. Colleman (Eds.), Ditransitive constructions in Germanic.

114
 References

Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and
language (pp. 217–​230). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Jing-​Schmidt, Z., & Peng, X. (2016). The emergence of disjunction: A history of constructionalization in
Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(1), 101–​136.
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of construction grammar (pp. 32–​48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mithun, M. (2008). Borrowed rhetorical constructions as starting points for grammaticalization. In A. Bergs &
G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 196–​230). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language,
14(2), 177–​202.
Noël, D. (2008). The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach.
Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–​340.
Noël, D. (2016). For a radically usage-​based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics,
30, 39–​53.
Noël, D. (2019). The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English: Towards a radically
usage-​based perspective on constructional attrition. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 22–​57.
Noël, D., & Colleman, T. (2018). Constructional renovation: The role of French legal language in the survival
of the nominative-​and-​infinitive in Dutch. In E. Zenner, A. Backus, & E. Winter-​Froemel (Eds.), Cognitive
Contact Linguistics: Placing usage, meaning and mind at the core of contact-​induced variation and change
(pp. 305–​337). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Norde, M. (in preparation). An introduction to diachronic construction morphology. Ms.
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization
or constructional change? In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words (pp. 475–​518). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Peng, R. (2013). A diachronic construction grammar account of the Chinese cause-​complement pivotal con-
struction. Language Sciences, 40, 53–​79.
Perek, F. (2018). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-​construction: A distributional
semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–​97.
Perek, F. (2020). Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova
(Eds.), Nodes and links in the network: Advances in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 141–​166).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Petré, P. (2010). The functions of weorðan and its loss in the past tense in Old and Middle English. English
Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 457–​484.
Petré, P. (2016). Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-​changes in the grammatical-
ization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 115–​146.
Petré, P., & Anthonissen, L. (2019). Grammaticalization and the linguistic individual: New avenues in lifespan
research. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(s2).
Petré, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-​time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammat-
icalization. Language, 94, 867–​901.
Pietsch, L. (2010). What has changed in Hiberno-​English: Constructions and their role in contact-​induced
change. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 63, 118–​145.
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: What is it and how do we measure it?
Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–​581.
Schmid, H.-​J. (2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-​and-​Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the
German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 1–​27.
Schmid, H.-​J., & Mantlik, A. (2015). Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds
from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133(4), 583–​623.
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (Eds.). (2020). Nodes and links in the network: Advances in Diachronic
Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Torrent, T. T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the
Construction Network Reconfiguration hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea
(Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–​212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The hand-
book of historical linguistics (pp. 624–​647). Oxford: Blackwell.
Traugott, E. C. (2008). ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was …’: On the emergence of grammatical
constructions in dialogic contexts. In R. Cooper & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coord-
ination, language variation, change and evolution (pp. 143–​177). London: Kings College Publications.

115
 References

Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Trousdale, G. (2008a). Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English imper-
sonal construction. In S. M. Fitzmaurice & D. Minkova (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English lan-
guage IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (pp. 301–​326).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trousdale, G. (2008b). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of
a composite predicate in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to
English grammar (pp. 33–​67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trousdale, G. (2010). Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In E. Stathi, E.
Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 51–​72). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Trousdale, G. (2012a). Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar: The case of the what with con-
struction. Studies in Language, 36(3), 576–​602.
Trousdale, G. (2012b). Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In K.
Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New
reflections (pp. 167–​198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T.
Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–​179). Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Winters, M. E. (2010). Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In M. E. Winters, H.
Tissari, & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 3−27). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Zehentner, E. (2017). Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative
alternation. English Language and Linguistics, 21(1), 1–​27.
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Zenner, E., Backus, A., & Winter-​Froemel, E. (Eds.). (2019). Cognitive Contact Linguistics: Placing usage,
meaning and mind at the core of contact-​induced variation and change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ziegeler, D. (2004). Grammaticalisation through constructions: The story of causative have in English. Annual
Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 159–​195.
Ziegeler, D. (2015). Converging grammars: Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Abdel-​Raheem, A. (2019). Pictorial framing in moral politics: A corpus-​ based experimental study.
London: Routledge.
Abed, F. (1994). Visual puns as interactive illustrations: Their effects on recognition memory. Metaphor and
Symbolic Activity, 9, 45–​60. DOI: 10.1207/​s15327868ms0901_​3
Adami, E. (2015). Aesthetics in digital texts beyond writing: A social semiotic multimodal framework. In A.
Archer & E. Breuer (Eds), Multimodality in writing: The state of the art in theory, methodology and peda-
gogy (pp. 43–​62). Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/​9789004297197_​004
Adami, E. (2017). Multimodality. In O. García, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of language and society (pp. 451–​472). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​
9780190212896.013.23
Archer, A., & Breuer, E. (Eds.). (2015). Multimodality in writing: The state of the art in theory, methodology
and pedagogy. Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/​9789004297197
Asenjo, R. (2018). The influence of culture in the multimodal murals of Northern Ireland. Warsaw Multimodality
Workshop and Masterclass, 7–​9 June. Poland: University of Warsaw.
Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and
coursebook. London: Equinox.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Barthes, R. (1986) (original work published in 1964). The rhetoric of the image. In The responsibility of forms
(pp. 21–​40) (R. Howard, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal
documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/​9780230582323
Bateman, J. (2014). Text and image: A critical introduction to the visual/​verbal divide. London: Routledge.
Bateman, J., Delin, J., & Henschel, R. (2004). Multimodality and empiricism: Preparing for a corpus-​based
approach to the study of multimodal meaning-​making. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.),
Perspectives on multimodality (pp. 65–​87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/​ddcs.6.06bat
Bateman, J., & Schmidt, K. H. (2014). Multimodal film analysis: How films mean. London: Routledge.
Bateman, J., Wildfeuer, J., & Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality: Foundations, research and analysis—​A
problem-​oriented introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

116
 References

Bounegru, L., & Forceville, C. (2011). Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis.
Visual Communication, 10, 209–​229. DOI: 10.1177/​1470357211398446
Burgers, C., Konijn, E., & Steen, G. (2016). Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor,
hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26, 410–​430. DOI: 10.1111/​comt.12096
Caballero, R. (2006). Reviewing space: Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1080/​10926480701357687
Caballero, R. (2009). Cutting across the senses: Imagery in winespeak and audiovisual promotion. In C.
Forceville and E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 73–​94). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
DOI: 10.1515/​9783110215366.2.73
Caple, H., Bednarek, M., & Anthony, L. (2018). Using Kaleidographic to visualize multimodal relations within
and across texts. Visual Communication, 17(4), 461–​474. DOI: 10.1177/​1470357218789287
Chandler, D. (2017). Semiotics: The basics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Chion, M. (2009). Film, a sound art (C. Gorbman, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Cienki, A. (2017). Ten lectures on spoken language and gesture from the perspective of cognitive linguis-
tics: Issues of dynamicity and multimodality. Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/​9789004336230
Cila, N. (2013). Metaphors we design by: The use of metaphors in product design. (Doctoral dissertation,
Technical University Delft, 2013).
Clark, B. (2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/​CBO978
1139034104
Coëgnarts, M., & Kravanja, P. (2012). From thought to modality: A theoretical framework for analysing
structural-​conceptual metaphor and image metaphor in film. Image and Narrative, 13(1), 96–​113.
Coëgnarts, M., & Kravanja, P. (Eds.). (2015). Embodied cognition and cinema. Leuven: Leuven University
Press.
Cohn, N. (2013). The visual language of comics: Introduction to the structure and cognition of sequential
images. London: Bloomsbury.
Cohn, N. (Ed.). (2016). The visual narrative reader. London: Bloomsbury.
Cook, N. (1998). Analysing musical multimedia. Oxford: Clarendon.
Cornevin, V., & Forceville, C. (2017). From metaphor to allegory: The Japanese manga Afuganisu-​tan.
Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 236–​252. DOI: 10.1075/​msw.7.2.04cor
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (Eds.). (2013). Critical multimodal studies of popular culture. New York: Routledge.
Domínguez, M. (2015). The metaphorical species: Evolution, adaptation and speciation of metaphors.
Discourse Studies, 17(4), 433–​448.
Elleström, L. (2010). Introduction. In L. Elleström (Ed.), Media borders, multimodality and intermediality (pp.
1–​48). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
El Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphors: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual
Communication, 2(1): 75–​95. DOI: 10.1177/​1470357203002001755
El Refaie, E. (2019). Visual metaphor and embodiment in graphic illness narratives. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fahlenbrach, K. (Ed.). (2016). Embodied metaphors in film, television, and video games. London: Routledge.
Fahlenbrach, K. (2017). Audiovisual metaphors and metonymies of emotions and depression in moving
images. In F. Ervas, E. Gola, & M. G. Rossi (Eds.), Metaphor in communication, science and education
(pp. 95–​117). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/​9783110549928–​006
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complex-
ities. New York: Basic Books.
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge.
Forceville, C. (1999). Educating the eye? Kress and Van Leeuwen’s Reading images: The grammar of visual
design. Language and Literature, 8(2), 163–​178. DOI: 10.1177/​096394709900800204
Forceville, C. (2005a). Visual representations of the idealized cognitive model of anger in the Asterix album La
Zizanie. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 69–​88. DOI: 10.1016/​j.pragma.2003.10.002
Forceville, C. (2005b). Addressing an audience: Time, place, and genre in Peter van Straaten’s calendar cartoons.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 18(3), 247–​278. DOI: 10.1515/​humr.2005.18.3.247
Forceville, C. (2006). Non-​verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research.
In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguis-
tics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 379–​402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2013). Creative visual duality in comics balloons. In T. Veale, K. Feyaerts, & C. Forceville
(Eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-​disciplinary exploration of a multi-​faceted phenomenon (pp.
253–​273). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

117
 References

Forceville, C. (2014). Relevance Theory as model for analysing multimodal communication. In D. Machin
(Ed.), Visual communication (pp. 51–​70). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Forceville, C. (2018). Multimodality, film, and cinematic metaphor: An evaluation of Müller and Kappelhoff.
Punctum: International Journal of Semiotics (Greece), 4(2), 90–​108. DOI: 10.18680/​hss.2018.0021
Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal communication: Applying the relevance principle. Oxford
University Press.
Forceville, C., & Clark B. (2014). Can pictures have explicatures? Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 451–​472.
Forceville, C., & Jeulink, M. (2011). “The flesh and blood of embodied understanding”: The source-​path-​goal
schema in animation film. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 37–​59. DOI: 10.1075/​pc.19.1.02for
Forceville, C., & Paling, S. (2018). The metaphorical representation of depression in short, wordless animation
films. Visual Communication, 20(1), 100–​120. DOI: 10.1177/​1470357218797994.
Forceville, C., & Urios-​Aparisi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C., & van de Laar, N. (2019). Metaphors portraying right-​wing politician Geert Wilders in Dutch
political cartoons. In E. Hidalgo Tenorio, M. Á. Benitez Castro, & F. De Cesare (Eds.), Populist dis-
course: Critical approaches to contemporary politics (pp. 292–​307). London: Routledge.
Frow, J. (2015). Genre (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Gibbons, A. (2012). Multimodality, cognition, and experimental literature. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1993). Process and products in making sense of tropes. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought
(2nd ed.) (pp. 252–​176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/​CBO9781139173865.014
Górska, E. (2010). Life is music: A case study of a novel metaphor and its use in discourse. English Text
Construction, 3(2), 275–​293. DOI: 10.1075/​bct.40.08gor
Greifenstein, S., Horst, D., Scherer, T., Schmitt, C., Kappelhoff, H., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2018). Cinematic
metaphor in perspective: Reflections on a transdisciplinary framework. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech
acts (pp. 41–​58). New York: Academic Press.
Hamann, A. (2018). Multimodal meaning-​making in classic Maya inscriptions. LaMiCuS, 2, 132–​146.
DOI: 10.32058/​LAMICUS-​2018–​005
Hidalgo-​Downing, L., & Mujic, B. K. (Eds.). (2013). Metaphorical creativity across modes. Special Issue of
Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2), 133–​269. DOI: 10.1075/​msw.3.2.01int
Hidalgo-​Downing, L., & Mujic, B. K. (Eds.). (2020). Performing metaphoric creativity across modes and
contexts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hiippala, T. (2015). The structure of multimodal documents: An empirical approach. London: Routledge.
Holšánová, J. (2008). Discourse, vision, and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holšánová, J. (2014). In the eye of the beholder: Visual communication from a recipient perspective. In D.
Machin (Ed.), Visual communication (pp. 331–​355). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hommerberg, C. (2011). Persuasiveness in the discourse of wine: The rhetoric of Robert Parker. (Doctoral
dissertation, Linnaeus University).
Ibarretxe-​Antuñano, I. (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 10(2), 315–​339.
Indurkhya, B., & Ojha, A. (2013). An empirical study on the role of perceptual similarity in visual metaphors
and creativity. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 233–​253. DOI: 10.1080/​10926488.2013.826554
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2014a). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2014b). Different approaches to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multi-
modal analysis (pp. 31–​43). London: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2014c). An introduction to multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal
analysis (pp. 15–​30). London: Routledge.
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. London: Routledge.
Johnson, M., & Larson S. (2003). “Something in the way she moves”—​Metaphors of musical motion.
Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 63–​84. DOI: 10.1207/​S15327868MS1802_​1
Kashanizadeh, Z., & Forceville, C. (2020). Visual and multimodal interaction of metaphor and metonymy: A
study of Iranian and Dutch print advertisements. Cognitive Linguistics Studies, 7(1) 78–110. DOI: 10.1075/
cogls.00050.kas.
Klug, N. M., & Stöckl, H. (Eds.). (2016). Handbuch sprache im multimodalen kontext/​The language in multi-
modal contexts handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics,
9(1), 37–​78. DOI: 10.1515/​cogl.1998.9.1.37
Kozloff, S. (1988). Invisible storytellers: Voice-​over narration in American fiction film. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Kozloff, S. (2000). Overhearing film dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.

118
 References

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London:

Routledge.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Arnold.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lankjær, B. (2016). Problems of metaphor, film, and visual perception. In K. Fahlenbrach (Ed.), Embodied
metaphors in film, television, and video games (pp. 115–​128). London: Routledge.
Lin, T. Y. Y., & Chiang, W. Y. (2015). Multimodal fusion in analyzing political cartoons: Debates on U.S. beef
imports into Taiwan. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 137–​161. DOI: 10.1080/​10926488.2015.1016859
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Machin, D. (Ed.). (2014), Visual communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics. New York: Paradox Press.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mildorf, J., & Kinzel, T. (Eds.). (2016). Audionarratology: Interfaces of sound and narrative. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh L. R. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-​semiotic approach to
multimodal figures of thought in co-​speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal
metaphor (pp. 329–​356). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Moya Guijarro, A. J. M. (2014). A multimodal analysis of picture books for children. Sheffield and
Bristol: Equinox.
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Müller, C., & Kappelhoff, H. (2018). Cinematic metaphor: Experience–​affectivity–​temporality. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Negro Alousque, I. (2014). Pictorial and verbo-​pictorial metaphor in Spanish political cartooning. Círculo de
Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 57, 59–​84. DOI: 10.5209/​rev_​CLAC.2014.v57.44515
Norris, S. (Ed.). (2012). Multimodality in practice: Investigating theory-​in-​practice through methodology.
London: Routledge.
Origgi, G. (2013). Democracy and trust in the age of the Social Web. Teoria Politica, Nova Serie, Annali
3, 23–​38.
Ortiz, M. J. (2011). Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568–​
1580. DOI: 10.1016/​j.pragma.2010.12.003
Ortiz, M. J. (2015). Films and embodied metaphors of emotion. In M. Coëgnarts & P. Kravanja (Eds.),
Embodied cognition and cinema (pp. 203–​220). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Pérez Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Plowright, P. (2017). Qualitative embodiment in architectural discourse: Conceptual metaphors and the value
judgement of space. (Doctoral dissertation, Facultad de Letras Universidad de Castilla-​La Mancha Ciudad
Real, Spain).
Plümacher, M., & Holz, P. (Eds.). (2007). Speaking of colors and odors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poppi, F. I. M., & Kravanja, P. (2019). Actiones secundum fidei: Antithesis and metaphoric conceptualization
in Banksy’s graffiti art. Metaphor and the Social World, 9(1), 84–​107. DOI: 10.1075/​msw.17021.pop
Rewiś-​Łętkowska, A. (2015). Multimodal representations of fear metaphors in television commercials. In D.
Brzozowska & W. Chłopicki (Eds.), Culture’s software: Communication styles (pp. 381–​404). Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Royce, T., & Bowcher, W. L. (Eds.). (2007). New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy.
In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–​132). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/​9783110894677.109
Schilperoord, J., & Maes, A. (2009). Visual metaphoric conceptualization in editorial cartoons. In C. Forceville
& E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 213–​240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.
Scollon, R., & Wong-Scollon, S. (2014). Multimodality and language: A retrospective and prospective view.
In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 205–​216). London: Routledge.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Stamenković, D., Tasić, M., &. Forceville, C. (2018). Facial expressions in comics: An empirical consideration
of McCloud’s proposal. Visual Communication, 17(4), 407–​432. DOI: 10.1177/​1470357218784075

119
 References

Steen, F. F., Hougaard, A., Joo, J., Olza, I., Cánovas, C. P., Pleshakova, A., Ray, S., Uhrig, P., Valenzuela,
J., Woźny, J., & Turner, M. (2018). Toward an infrastructure for data-​driven multimodal communication
research. LaMiCuS, 2, 208–​222.
Stöckl, H. (2005). Typography: Body and dress of a text—​a signing mode between language and image. Visual
Communication, 4(2), 204–​214. DOI: 10.1177/​1470357205053403
Stöckl, H. (2014a). Typography. In S. Norris & C. D. Maier (Eds.), Interactions, images and texts: A reader in
multimodality (pp. 281–​294). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Stöckl, H. (2014b). Semiotic paradigms and multimodality. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of
multimodal analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 274–​286). London: Routledge.
Stöckl, H. (2019). Linguistic multimodality—​multimodal linguistics: A state-​of-​the-​art sketch. In J. Wildfeuer,
J. Pflaeging, J. Bateman, C. Tseng, & O. Seizov (Eds.), Multimodality: Disciplinary thoughts and the
challenge of diversity (pp. 41–​68). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Szawerna, M. (2017). Metaphoricity of conventionalized diegetic images in comics: A study in multimodal
cognitive linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Taylor, C. (2019). Audio description: A multimodal practice in expansion. In J. Wildfeuer, J. Pflaeging, J. Bateman,
C. Tseng, & O. Seizov (Eds.), Multimodality: Disciplinary thoughts and the challenge of diversity (pp. 195–​
218). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Teng, N. Y. (2009). Image alignment in multimodal metaphor. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.),
Multimodal metaphor (pp. 197–​211). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Teng, N. Y., & Sun, S. (2002). Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in pictures: A design-​based cognitive approach.
Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 295–​316. DOI: 10.1207/​S15327868MS1704_​3
Tseng, C. (2013). Cohesion in film: Tracking film elements. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tseronis, A., & Forceville, C. (2017). The argumentative relevance of visual and multimodal antithesis in
Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries. In A. Tseronis & C. Forceville (Eds.), Multimodal argumentation and
rhetoric in media genres (pp. 165–​188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/​aic.14.07tse
Tuominen, T., Hurtado, C. J., & Ketola, A. (2018). Why methods matter: Approaching multimodality in trans-
lation research. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 17, 1–​21.
Unsworth, L., & Clérigh, C. (2009). Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-​
text interaction. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 151–​
163). London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal, 14(2), 139–​155.
DOI: 10.1075/​idj.14.2.06lee
Van Rompay, T. J. L. (2005). Expressions: Embodiment in the experience of design. (Doctoral dissertation,
Technical University Delft, Netherlands).
Ventola, E., & Moya Guijarro, A. J. M. (Eds.). (2009). The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic
issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-​verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, T., & Strey, C. (2019). Slave of the passions: Making emotions relevant. In K. Scott, B. Clark,
& R. Carston (Eds.), Relevance, pragmatics and interpretation (pp. 253–​266). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wildfeuer, J., Pflaeging, J., Bateman, J., Tseng, C., & Seizov, O. (Eds.). (2019). Multimodality: Disciplinary
thoughts and the challenge of diversity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (Eds.). (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-​mediated communication in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yus, F. (2014). Not all emoticons are created equal. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 511–​529.
Yus, F. (2016). Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zbikowski, L. (2009). Music, language, and multimodal metaphor. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-​Aparisi (Eds.),
Multimodal metaphor (pp. 359–​381). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Adger, D. (2019). Language unlimited: The science behind our most creative power. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2015). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney
& W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 478–​510). Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell.
Augustyn, P. (2013). What connects biolinguistics and biosemiotics? Biolinguistics, 7, 96–​111.
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533–​581.
Balari, S., Benítez-​Burraco, A., Longa, V. M., & Lorenzo, G. (2013). The fossils of language: What are they?
Who has them? How did they evolve? In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of biolinguistics (pp. 489–​523). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balari, S., & Lorenzo, G. (2013). Computational phenotypes: Towards an evolutionary developmental
biolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

120
 References

Balari, S., & Lorenzo, G. (2015). Should it stay or should it go? A critical reflection on the critical period for
language. Biolinguistics, 9, 8–​42.
Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes: An introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Barbieri, M. (2010). On the origin of language: A bridge between biolinguistics and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics,
3(2), 201–​223.
Barceló-​Coblijn, L., Benítez-​Burraco, A., & Irurtzun, A. (2015). Syntactic networks as an endophenotype of
developmental language disorders: An evo-​devo approach to clinical linguistics. Biolinguistics, 9, 43–​49.
Bavin, E. L., & Naigles, L. R. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of child language (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, M., & Ud Deen, K. (2020). Language acquisition and development: A generative introduction.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Benítez-​Burraco, A. (2013). Genetics of language: Roots of specific language deficits. In C. Boeckx & K.
K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 375–​412). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Benítez-​Burraco, A., & Boeckx, C. (2014). Universal grammar and biological variation: An evodevo agenda
for comparative biolinguistics. Biological Theory, 9, 122–​134.
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Piattelli-​Palmarini, M. (2012). Poverty of the stimulus stands: Why recent
challenges fail. In M. Piattelli-​Palmarini & R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs (pp.
19–​42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive
Science, 35(7), 1207–​1242.
Bickerton, D. (2013). Language and natural selection. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 478–​488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bickerton, D. (2014). More than nature needs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blümel, A. (to appear). Labeling theory. In K. K. Grohmann & E. Leivada (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of
minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boeckx, C. (2009). The nature of merge: Consequences for language, mind, and biology. In M. Piattelli-​
Palmarini, J. Uriagereka, & P. Salaburu (Eds.), Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in
the Basque Country (pp. 44–​57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. (2010). Language in cognition: Uncovering mental structures and the rules behind them.
Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell.
Boeckx, C. (2011a). Some reflections on Darwin’s problem in the context of Cartesian biolinguistics. In A. M.
Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature
of the human language faculty (pp. 42–​64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. (Ed.). (2011b). The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. (2013a). Biolinguistics: Forays into human cognitive biology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences,
91, 1–​28.
Boeckx, C. (2013b). Biolinguistics: Fact, fiction, and forecast. Biolinguistics, 7, 316–​328.
Boeckx, C., & Benítez-​Burraco, A. (2014a). Biolinguistics 2.0. In K. Fujita, N. Fukui, N. Yusa, & M. Ike-​Uchi
(Eds.), The design, development and evolution of human language: Biolinguistic explorations (pp. 8–​30).
Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Boeckx, C. A., & Benítez-​Burraco, A. (2014b). The shape of the human language-​ready brain. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 282. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2014.00282.
Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2007). The Biolinguistics manifesto. Biolinguistics, 1, 1–​8.
Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2013). Introducing the volume. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 1–​3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boeckx, C., Horno-​Chéliz, M. C., & Mendívil-​Giró, J. L. (2012). Introduction: Integrating linguistics and
biology. In C. Boeckx, M. C. Horno-​Chéliz, & J. L. Mendívil-​Giró (Eds.), Language, from a biological
point of view: Current issues in biolinguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Boeckx, C., & Piattelli-​Palmarini, M. (2005). Language as a natural object—​linguistics as a natural science.
The Linguistic Review, 22, 447–​466.
Bornkessel-​Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Computational primitives in morphology and possible
brain correlates. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp.
283–​308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourguignon, N., Nadig, A., & Valois, D. (2012). The biolinguistics of autism: Emergent perspectives.
Biolinguistics, 6, 124–​165.
Brasoveanu, A., & Dotlačil, J. (2020). Computational cognitive modeling and linguistic theory. Cham: Springer.

121
 References

Bruns, C., Varley, R., Zimmerer, V. C., Carragher, M., Brekelmans, G., & Beeke, S. (2019). “I don’t know”: A
usage-​based approach to familiar collocations in non-​fluent aphasia. Aphasiology, 33(2), 140–​162.
Chomsky, N. (1955 [1975]). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University &
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published in part as The logical structure of linguistic theory,
New York: Plenum, 1975.]
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper
and Row.
Chomsky, N. (1967). The formal nature of language. In E. Lenneberg (Ed.), Biological foundations of lan-
guage (pp. 397–​442). New York: John Wiley.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, N. (1976). On the biological basis of language capacities. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The neuropsych-
ology of language: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 1–​24). New York: Plenum Press.
Chomsky, N. (1978). A naturalistic approach to language and cognition. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4, 3–​22.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press. [Reprinted with a
foreword by N. Hornstein, 2005.]
Chomsky, N. (1981a). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1981b). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In N. Hornstein & D. W. Lightfoot (Eds.),
Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–​75). London: Longman.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1987). Transformational grammar: Past, present, and future. In N. Chomsky, Generative
grammar: Its basis, development and prospects. Special Issue of Studies in English Language and Literature
(pp. 33–​80). Kyoto: Kyoto University of Foreign Studies.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view
from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–​52). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. [Reprinted in N. Chomsky (1995). The minimalist program (pp. 167–​217). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.]
Chomsky, N. (1997). Language and problems of knowledge. Teorema, XVI, 5–​33.
Chomsky, N. (1998 [2000]). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15.
[Appeared in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in
honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–​155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.]
Chomsky, N. (1999 [2001]). Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18. [Appeared in M.
Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–​52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.]
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–​22.
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H.-​M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + recur-
sion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax–​semantics (pp. 1–​18). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (2009). Opening remarks. In M. Piattelli-​Palmarini, J. Uriagereka, & P. Salaburu (Eds.), Of
minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country (pp. 13–​43). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2010). Some simple evo-​devo theses: How might they be true for language? In R. K. Larson,
V. Déprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language (pp. 45–​62). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2017). The Galilean challenge: Architecture and evolution of language. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 880, 012015. doi: 10.1088/​1742–​6596/​880/​1/​012015.
Chomsky, N., & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow,
W. Sternefeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research (pp.
506–​569). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic per-
formance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–​205.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
31(5), 489–​558.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2015). The language faculty that wasn’t: A usage-​based account of natural
language recursion. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1182. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2015.01182.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and pro-
cessing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

122
 References

Christiansen, M. H., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). A usage-​based approach to recursion in sentence processing.
Language Learning, 59, 126–​161.
Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R. (2017). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 120–​149.
Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2001). Nature, nurture, and universal grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24,
139–​186.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
Descartes, R. (1637/​1649). Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, & chercher la vérité dans les
sciences. Leiden: Jan Maire./​English translation: A discourse of a method for the well guiding of reason,
and the discovery of truth in the sciences. London: Thomas Newcombe.
De Vos, M. (2015). Outlining the parameters for a linguistic nativist position. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics
Plus, 48, 17–​40.
Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2016). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic
structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 19, 158–​164.
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Boeckx, C. (2011). Introduction: Contours of the biolinguistic research agenda. In A. M.
Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature
of the human language faculty (pp. 1–​16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Sciullo, A. M., Piattelli-​Palmarini, M., Wexler, K., Berwick, R. C., Boeckx, C., Jenkins, L., Uriagereka,
J., Stromswold, K., Cheng, L.L.-​S., Harley, H., Wedel, A., McGilvray, J., van Gelderen E., & Bever, T. G.
(2010). The biological nature of human language. Biolinguistics, 4, 4–​34.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology
Teacher, 35, 125–​129.
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance
for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–​348.
Fasanella, A., & Fortuny, J. (2016). Deriving linguistic variation from learnability conditions: The chunking
procedure. In L. Eguren, O. Fernández-​Soriano, & A. Mendikoetxea (Eds.), Rethinking parameters (pp.
105–​132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Felix, S. W. (2010). Me and Chomsky: Remarks from someone who quit. In T. Hanneforth & G. Fanselow
(Eds.), Language and logos: Studies in theoretical and computational linguistics—​Festschrift for Peter
Staudacher on his 70th birthday (pp. 64–​71). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Ferretti, F., Adornetti, I., Chiera, A., Cosentino, E., & Nicchiarelli, S. (2018). Introduction: Origin and evolu-
tion of language—​an interdisciplinary perspective. Topoi, 37, 219–​234.
Fitch, W. T. (2009). Prolegomena to a future science of biolinguistics. Biolinguistics, 3, 283–​320.
Fitch, W. T. (2010a). Three meanings of ‘recursion’: Key distinctions for biolinguistics. In R. K. Larson, V.
Déprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 73–​90).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitch, W. T. (2010b). The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitch, W. T. (2017). On externalization and cognitive continuity in language evolution. Mind & Language, 32,
597–​606.
Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and
implications. Cognition, 97, 179–​210.
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A. (2000). Precis of The modularity of mind. In R. Cummins & D. Dellarosa Cummins (Eds.), Minds,
brains and computers: The foundations of cognitive science (pp. 493–​499). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frank, S. L., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Hierarchical and sequential processing of language. Language,
Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(9), 1213–​1218.
Freidin, R., & Vergnaud, J.-​R. (2001). Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic
theory. Lingua, 111, 639–​666.
Friederici, A. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Friedmann, N., Biran, M., & Dotan, D. (2013). Lexical retrieval and its breakdown in aphasia and devel-
opmental language impairment. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
biolinguistics (pp. 350–​374). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fujita, K. (2002). Review of Biolinguistics: Exploring the biology of language by Lyle Jenkins. Gengo Kenkyu,
121, 165–​178.

123
 References

Fujita, K. (2007). Facing the logical problem of language evolution. English Linguistics, 24, 78–​108.
Fujita, K. (2009). A prospect for evolutionary adequacy: Merge and the evolution and development of human
language. Biolinguistics, 3(2–​3), 128–​153.
Gagliano, M., & Grimonprez, M. (2015). Breaking the silence—​Language and the making of meaning in
plants. Ecopsychology, 7(3), 145–​152.
Gallistel, C. R., & King, A. P. (2009). Memory and the computational brain: Why cognitive science will trans-
form neuroscience. Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 3–​21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, K. R., & Tallerman, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Givón, T. (1999). Bio-​linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grimaldi, M. (2012). Toward a neural theory of language: Old issues and new perspectives. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 25, 304–​327.
Grohmann, K. K. (2013). Spell-​out rules. In H. Broekhuis & R. Vogel (Eds.), Linguistic derivations and
filtering: Minimalism and optimality theory (pp. 316–​352) Sheffield: Equinox.
Grohmann, K. K. (2015). Biolinguistics for biolinguistics. Biolinguistics, 9, 1–​7.
Grohmann, K. K. (2019a). Mindful of the brain. Inference, 4 (4). https://​inference-​review.com/​letter/​
mindful-​of-​the-​brain
Grohmann, K. K. (2019b). Competence and performance. In M. J. Ball & J. S. Damico (Eds.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of human communication sciences and disorders. Vol. 1 (pp. 443–​447). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Grohmann, K. K., & Kambanaros, M. (2016). The gradience of multilingualism in typical and impaired lan-
guage development: Positioning bilectalism within comparative bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,
37. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2016.00037.
Grohmann, K. K., & Kambanaros, M. (2019). Generative linguistics. In M. J. Ball & J. S. Damico (Eds.), The
SAGE encyclopedia of human communication sciences and disorders. Vol. 2 (pp. 802–​807). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Grohmann, K. K., Kambanaros, M., & Leivada, E. (2021). The mirage of ‘impaired passives’ and the locus
preservation hypothesis. In K. K. Grohmann, A. Matsuya, & E.-​M. Remberger (Eds.), Passives cross-​
linguistically: Theoretical and experimental approaches (pp. 419–434). Leiden: Brill.
Grohmann, K. K., & Leivada, E. (Eds). (to appear). The Cambridge handbook of minimalism . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Guasti, M. T. (2017). Language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hackett, C. (2018). Justifications for a discontinuity theory of language evolution. Biolinguistics, 11(SI),
171–​219.
Hagoort, P. (Ed.). (2019). Human language: From genes and brains to behaviors. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Hancock, R., & Bever, T. G. (2013). Genetic factors and normal variation in the organization of language.
Biolinguistics, 7, 75–​95.
Haspelmath, M. (2020). We are all structuralists. Blogpost on the weblog Diversity Linguistics Comment.
https://​dlc.hypotheses.org/​we-​are-​all-​structuralists?fbclid=IwAR0JKZeCfhHZnjzN9yfB6TOfPh98ppmpf
4mQHDbGkF4XXn2vsYZoKaIFxKg.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how
did it evolve? Science, 298 (5598), 1569–​1579.
Hernández, M., Martin, C. D., Sebastián-​Gallés, N., & Costa, A. (2013). Bilingualism beyond language: On
the impact of bilingualism on executive control. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 160–​177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickok, G. (2013). The role of Broca’s area in language function. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 341–​349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. Trends in
Cognitive Science, 4, 131–​138.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
8(5), 393–​402.
Hickok, G., & Small, S. (Eds.). (2016). Neurobiology of language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hinzen, W. (2011). Language and thought. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism
(pp. 499–​522). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinzen, W. (2017). Reference across pathologies: A new linguistic lens on disorders of thought. Theoretical
Linguistics, 43(3–​4), 169–​232.

124
 References

Hinzen, W., Mukherji, N., & Boruah, B. (2011). The character of mind. Biolinguistics, 5(3), 274–​283.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics: An examination of the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton,
PA: Scranton University Press.
Hoji, H. (2016). Language faculty science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hornstein, N. (2009). A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hornstein, N. (2013). LSA summer camp. Blogpost on the weblog Faculty of Language. http://​facultyoflanguage.
blogspot.com/​2013/​07/​lsa-​summer-​camp.html
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Huang, C.-​T. J., & Roberts, I. (2017). Principles and parameters of universal grammar. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 307–​354). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Humboldt, W. von (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die
geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: F. Dümmler. [English translation by P. Heath, On
language: The diversity of human language structure and its influence on the mental development of man-
kind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.]
Isac, D., & Reiss, C. (2013). I-​language: An introduction to linguistics as cognitive science (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language, 87, 586–​624.
Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of
language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97, 211–​225.
Jenkins, L. (2000). Biolinguistics: Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jenkins, L. (2013). Biolinguistics: A historical perspective. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 4–​11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jin, P., Lu, Y., & Ding, N. (2020). Low-​frequency neural activity reflects rule-​based chunking during speech
listening. eLife Sciences, 9, e55613. doi: 10.7554/​eLife.55613.
Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K. K. (2015). Grammatical class effects across impaired child and adult
populations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1670. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2015.01670.
Katz, J. J. (1984). An outline of Platonist grammar. In T. G. Bever, J. M. Carroll, & L. A. Miller (Eds.), Talking
minds: The study of language in cognitive science (pp. 17–​48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kemmerer, D. (2020). Cognitive neuroscience of language (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Kirby, S. (2013). Luria’s biolinguistic suggestion and the growth of language. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 460–​477). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knott, A. (2014). Syntactic structures as descriptions of sensorimotor processes. Biolinguistics, 8, 1–​52.
Koster, J. (2009). Ceaseless, unpredictable creativity: Language as technology. Biolinguistics, 3, 61–​92.
Kull, K., & Velmezova, E. (2015). Language, linguistics: Life, biosemiotics… In E. Velmezova, K. Kull, & S.
J. Cowley (Eds.), Biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics (pp. 1–​10). Cham: Springer.
Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An
interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, anthropology and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Ross, J. R. (1967 [1976]). Is deep structure necessary? Personal letter to Arnold Zwicky.
[Published in J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground
(pp. 159–​164). New York: Academic Press, 1976.]
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (2012). Substrate, system, and expression: Aspects of the functional organization of English
finite clauses in English. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between
universality and variation (pp. 3–​52). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lasnik, H., & Lidz, J. (2017). The argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of universal grammar (pp. 221–​248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasnik, H., & Uriagereka, J. (2002). On the poverty of the challenge. The Linguistic Review, 19, 147–​150.
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-​assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic
Review, 19, 151–​162.
Leivada, E. (2012). A non-​parametric approach to universal grammar within the biolinguistic program.
Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona MA thesis.
Leivada, E. (2014). From comparative languistics to comparative (bio)linguistics: Reflections on variation.
Biolinguistics, 8, 53–​66.
Leivada, E. (2015). The nature and limits of variation across languages and pathologies. Barcelona: Universitat
de Barcelona PhD dissertation.

125
 References

Leivada, E. (2020). Misused terms in linguistics. Inference, 5(2). https://​inference-​review.com/​article/​

misused-​terms-​in-​linguistics
Leivada, E., Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K. K. (2017). The locus preservation hypothesis: Shared linguistic
profiles across developmental disorders and the resilient part of the human language faculty. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1765. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2017.01765.
Leivada, E., Westergaard, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Rothman, J. (2020). On the phantom-​like appearance of
bilingualism effects on neurocognition: (How) should we proceed? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
24(1), 1–​14. doi: 10.1017/​S1366728920000358.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Levinson, S. C. (2014). Language and Wallace’s problem. Science, 344(6191), 1458–​1459.
Lidz, J. L., Snyder, W., & Pater, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieberman, P. (2015). Language did not spring forth 100,000 years ago. PLoS Biology, 13(2), e1002064.
Lightfoot, D. (2006). How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lohndal, T., & Uriagereka, J. (2017). Third-​factor explanations and universal grammar. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 114–​128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lorenzo, G., & Longa, V. M. (2009). Beyond generative geneticism: Rethinking language acquisition from a
developmentalist point of view. Lingua, 119(9), 1300–​1315.
Ludlow, P. (2011). The philosophy of generative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marcus, G. F., Rabaglia, C. D., & Rabagliati, H. (2013). Modularity and descent-​with-​modification. In
C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 326–​340).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational approach. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. [Republished by Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2010.]
McCawley, J. D. (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Chicago
Linguistic Society, 4, 71–​80. [Reprinted in J. D. McCawley, Grammar and meaning (pp. 155–​166).
Tokyo: Taishukan, 1973.]
McGilvray, J. (2013). The philosophical foundations of biolinguistics. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 22–​46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGilvray, J. (2017). On the history of universal grammar. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of uni-
versal grammar (pp. 77–​93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meader, C. L., & Muyskens, J. H. (1950). Handbook of biolinguistics. Toledo: H. C. Weller.
Meisel, J. M. (2013). Sensitive phases in successive language acquisition: The critical period hypothesis
revisited. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 69–​85).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millotte, S., Cauvet, E., Brusini, P., & Christophe, A. (2013). Discovering word forms and word meanings: The
role of phrasal prosody and function words. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge hand-
book of biolinguistics (pp. 86–​93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miyagawa, S. (2017). Integration hypothesis: A parallel model of language development in evolution. In S.
Watanabe, M. Hofman, & T. Shimizu (Eds.), Evolution of the brain, cognition, and emotion in vertebrates
(pp. 225–​247). Berlin: Springer.
Miyagawa, S., Berwick, R. C., & Okanoya, K. (2013). The emergence of hierarchical structure in human lan-
guage. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 71. doi: 10.3389/​fpsyg.2013.00071.
Mobbs, I. J. (2015). Minimalism and the design of the language faculty. Cambridge: University of Cambridge
PhD dissertation.
Monahan, P. J., Lau, E. F., & Idsardi, W. J. (2013). Computational primitives in phonology and their neural
correlates. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 233–​
256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, E. (2020). The oscillatory nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Niyogi, P. (2006). The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Nöth, W. (2015). Biolinguistics and biosemiotics. In E. Velmezova, K. Kull, & S. J. Cowley (Eds.), Biosemiotic
perspectives on language and linguistics (pp. 151–​168). Cham: Springer.
Okanoya, K. (2013). Birdsong for biolinguistics. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 431–​459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patel-​Grosz, P., & Schlenker, P. (2018). Super linguistics. Research group website. www.hf.uio.no/​iln/​english/​
research/​groups/​super-​linguistics/​index.html
Pearl, L., & Lidz, J. (2013). Parameters in language acquisition. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 129–​159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pennisi, A., & Falzone, A. (2016). Darwinian biolinguistics: Theory and history of a naturalistic philosophy of
language and pragmatics. Cham: Springer.

126
 References

Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Regier, T. (2006 [2011]). Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. In
R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
(CSS 28) (pp. 663–​668). Vancouver: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Revised version published in Cognition, 118,
306–​338, 2011.]
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD
dissertation.
Phillips, C. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 37–​90.
Piattelli-​Palmarini, M. (1974). A debate on bio-​linguistics. Centre Royaumont pour une science de l’homme
report. [Conference held at Endicott House, Dedham, Massachusetts, May 20–​21, 1974.]
Piattelli-​Palmarini, M. (Ed.). (1980). Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam
Chomsky. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Piattelli-​Palmarini, M. (2013). Biolinguistics yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 12–​21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13,
707–​784.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–​236.
Poeppel, D. (2017). The influence of Chomsky on the neuroscience of language. In J. McGilvray (Ed.), The
Cambridge companion to Chomsky (2nd ed.) (pp. 155–​174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poeppel, D., & Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In A. Cutler
(Ed.), Twenty-​first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 103–​118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Poeppel, D., & Monahan, P. J. (2008). Speech perception: Cognitive foundations and cortical implementation.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2), 80–​85.
Postal, P. M. (2009). The incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’ ontology. Biolinguistics, 3(1), 104–​123.
Progovac, L. (2019). A critical introduction to language evolution: Current controversies and future prospects.
Cham: Springer.
Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review,
19, 9–​50.
Pylkkänen, L., Brennan, J., & Bemis, D. (2013). Grounding the cognitive neuroscience of semantics in lin-
guistic theory. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp.
309–​325). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reboul, A. (2017). Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Regier, T., & Gahl, S. (2003). Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition, 93, 147–​155.
Rizzi, L. (2017). The concept of explanatory adequacy. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal
grammar (pp. 97–​113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (2017). Introduction. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 1–​34).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2015). Leibnizian linguistics. In Á. J. Gallego & D. Ott (Eds.), 50 years
later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects (pp. 211–​222). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Rosselló, J., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (2012). The biolinguistic turn. Issues on language and biology.
Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge: Its scope and value. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Samuels, B. D. (2011). Phonological architecture: A biolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Samuels, B. D. (2015). Can a bird brain do phonology? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1082. doi: 10.3389/​
fpsyg.2015.01082.
Samuels, B. D., Hauser, M. D., & Boeckx, C. (2017). Looking for UG in animals: A case study in phon-
ology. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 527–​546). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-​Schlesewsky, I. (2013). Computational primitives in syntax and possible brain
correlates. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 257–​
282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siewierska, A. (2013). Functional and cognitive grammars. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the his-
tory of linguistics (pp. 485–​501). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I. M. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, N., Tsimpli, I. M., Morgan, G., & Woll, B. (2010). The signs of a savant: Language against the odds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

127
 References

Smith, T. J., Henning, R., Wade, M. G., & Fisher, T. (2014). Variability in human performance. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Sperlich, W. B. (2006). Noam Chomsky (Critical Lives). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2013). The role of experimental syntax in an integrated cognitive science of lan-
guage. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 181–​202).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stamenov, M. (2014). Biolinguistics between the language gene, the fossils of language, Merge, and beyond.
Language and Dialogue, 4, 465–​477.
Tallerman, M., Newmeyer, F., Bickerton, D., Nouchard, D., Kann, D., & Rizzi, L. (2009). What kinds of
syntactic phenomena must biologists, neurobiologists, and computer scientists try to explain and repli-
cate? In D. Bickerton & E. Szathmáry (Eds.), Biological foundations and origin of syntax (pp. 135–​157).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and autonomous linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 566–​588). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 24, 629–​641.
Terrace, H. S. (2019). Why chimpanzees can’t learn language and only humans can. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Thagard, P. (2005). Mind: Introduction to cognitive science (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thompson, D’Arcy (1917/​1942 [1992]). On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[Reprinted in J. T. Bonner (Ed.), foreword by S. J. Gould, 1992.]
Thornton, R., & Crain, S. (2013). Parameters: The pluses and the minuses. In M. den Dikken (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of generative syntax (pp. 927–​970). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–​433.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-​ based approach to language. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and first language acquisition. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1092–​1112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trettenbrein, P. C. (2015). The ‘grammar’ in universal grammar: A biolinguistic clarification. Questions and
Answers in Linguistics, 2, 1–​10.
Trettenbrein, P. C. (2017). 50 years later: A tribute to Eric Lenneberg’s Biological Foundations of Language.
Biolinguistics, 11(SI), 21–​30.
Trotzke, A., Bader, M., & Frazier, L. (2013). Third factors and the performance interface in language design.
Biolinguistics, 7, 1–​34.
Truswell, R. (2014). Book review of Boeckx & Grohmann (2013). Lingua, 143, 52–​55.
Tsimpli, I. M. (2013). (Evidence for) the language instinct. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 49–​68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsimpli, I. M., Kambanaros, M., & Grohmann, K. K. (2017). Language pathology. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 486–​508). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Varley, R., Klessinger, N., Romanowski, C., & Siegal, M. (2005). Agrammatic but numerate. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of American, 102(9), 3519–​3524.
Wacewicz, S., & Żywiczyński, P. (2014). The multimodal origins of linguistic communication. Language and
Communication, 54, 1–​8.
Wacewicz, S., Żywiczyński, P., Hartmann, S., Pleyer, M., & Benítez-​Burraco, A. (2020). Language in language
evolution research: In defense of a pluralistic view. Biolinguistics, 14 (SI).
Wagers, M., & McElree, B. (2013). Working memory and language processing: Theory, data, and directions for
future research. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp.
203–​232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, A. R. (1869). Sir Charles Lyell on geological climates and the origin of species. Quarterly Review
(April), 359–​392.
Wen, X., Yang, K., & Kuang, F. (2014). Cognitive linguistics: Retrospect and prospect. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 1, 155–​170.
Wexler, K. (2013). Luria’s biolinguistic suggestion and the growth of language. In C. Boeckx & K. K.
Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 94–​128). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wildgen, W. (2008). Sketch of an evolutionary grammar based on comparative biolinguistics. In L. S. Röska-​
Hardy & E. M. Neumann-​Held (Eds.), Learning from animals? Examining the nature of human uniqueness
(pp. 45–​59). Hove: Psychology Press.

128
 References

Yang, C. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zaefferer, D., & Poeppel, D. (2010). Linguistic universals as human universals—​Divergent views and conver-
ging evidence on language congruence and diversity. Biolinguistics, 4(2–​3), 159–​164.
Zimmerer, V. C., Dąbrowska, E., Romanowski, C., Blank, C., & Varley, R. (2014). Preservation of the passive
in a patient with primary progressive aphasia. Cortex, 50, 7–​18.
Zimmerer, V. C., Wibrow, M., & Varley, R. (2016). Formulaic language in people with probable Alzheimer’s
disease: A frequency-​based approach. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 53, 1145–​1160.
Zuberbühler, K. (2013). The cognitive capacities of non-​human primates. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 415–​430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adolph, K. E., & Kretch, K. S. (2015). Gibson’s theory of perceptual learning. In J. D. Wright (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 127–​134). Oxford: Elsevier.
Bang, J. C., & Døør, J. (2007). Language, ecology, and society: A dialectical approach (S. V. Steffensen & J.
Nash Eds.). London: Continuum.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clements, F. E., & Shelford, V. E. (1938). Bio-​Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cowley, S. J. (1998). Of timing, turn-​taking, and conversations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(5),
541–​571. doi: 10.1023/​A:1024948912805
Cowley, S. J. (2011). Distributed language. In S. J. Cowley (Ed.), Distributed language (pp. 1–​14).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cowley, S. J. (2014). Bio-​ecology and language: A necessary unity. Language Sciences, 41(Pt. A(0)), 60–​70.
doi: http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.langsci.2013.08.007
Cowley, S. J. (2019). The return of languaging: Towards a new ecolinguistics. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 15(4),
483–512.
Cowley, S. J., & Markoš, A. (2019). Evolution, lineages and human language. Language Sciences, 71, 8–​18.
doi: https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.langsci.2018.03.005
Crystal, D. (2002). Language death (New ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darwin, C. (1981). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Eds. J. T. Bonner & R. M. May.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1993). Consciousness explained. London: Penguin.
Dennett, D. C. (1994). The myth of original intentionality. In E. Dietrich (Ed.), Thinking computers and virtual
persons (pp. 91–​107). New York: Academic Press.
Døør, J., & Bang, J. C. (2000). Ecology, ethics and communication: An essay in eco-​linguistics. In A. V. Lindø
& J. Bundsgaard (Eds.), Dialectical ecolinguistics: Three essays for the symposium 30 Years of Language
and Ecology in Graz December 2000 (pp. 53–​82). Odense: Odense University.
Fill, A., & Penz, H. (2018). The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics. New York: Routledge.
Finke, P. (2014). The ecology of science and its consequences for the ecology of language. Language Sciences,
41(Pt. A), 71–​82. doi: http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.langsci.2013.08.008
Finke, P. (2019). Linguistics at the end of the Baconian Age; or: Five essentials of ecolinguistics. In S.
V. Steffensen (Ed.), The Aalpiri papers: Two critical reflections on contemporary ecolinguistics.
Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
Fowler, C. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2012). Speech perception. In M. J. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. F. Joanisse
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 3–​20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? (7th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hale, K. (1992). Endangered languages: On endangered languages and the safeguarding of diversity. Language,
68(1), 1–​42. doi: 10.1353/​lan.1992.0052.
Halliday, M. A. (1992). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Thirty
years of linguistic evolution (pp. 59–​95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.
Harvey, M. I., Gahrn-​Andersen, R., & Steffensen, S. V. (2016). Interactivity and enaction in human cognition.
Constructivist Foundations, 11(2), 602–​613.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Ed. Á. S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heine, S. J. (2008). Cultural psychology. New York: W.W. Norton.
Herik, J. van den (2019). Talking about talking: An ecological-​enactive perspective on language. PhD disser-
tation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.

129
 References

Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hood, B. (2012). Self illusion: Why there is no ‘You’ inside your head. La Vergne: Constable & Robinson.
Humboldt, W. von (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf
die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Druckerei der Königlichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Dümmler.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri
and L. A. Meyer (Eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Steffensen, S. V. (2008). Ecological perspectives on second language acquisition and social-
ization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 8, 17–​28.
Kravchenko, A. V. (2011). How Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition can revive the language sciences.
Constructivist Foundations, 6(3), 352–​362.
Kravchenko, A. V. (2016). Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics. Language Sciences, 54, 102–​
113. doi: https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.langsci.2015.12.002
Kuhle, A. (2018). Tool intelligence as an explanation of cross-​linguistic variation and family resemblance: An
evolutionary and typological investigation. Washington, DC: Lexington Books.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Leather, J., & van Dam J. (Eds.). (2003). Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer.
Li, W. (2017). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–​30. doi: 10.1093/​
applin/​amx039
Love, N. (1990). The locus of languages in a redefined linguistics. In H. G. Davis & T. J. Taylor (Eds.),
Redefining linguistics (pp. 53–​117). London: Routledge.
Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition. Urbana: University of Illinois, Urbana.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer & R. K. Merton (Eds.), The sociology
of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs (12th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). Language of environment, environment of language: A course in ecolinguistics.
London: Battlebridge.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-​range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1–​4),
95–​100. doi: 10.1080/​00201747308601682
Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological
Review, 65(3), 151–​166.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Potter, V. R. (1988). Global bioethics: Building on the Leopold legacy. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.
Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reiss, J., & Sprenger, J. (2017). Scientific objectivity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of phil-
osophy. https://​plato.stanford.edu/​archives/​win2017/​entries/​scientific-​objectivity/​.
Saussure, F. de (1992). Course in general linguistics (5th ed.). LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
Shapiro, J. A. (2011). Evolution: A view from the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press.
Steffensen, S. V. (2011). Beyond mind: An extended ecology of languaging. In S. J. Cowley (Ed.), Distributed
language (pp. 185–​210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steffensen, S. V. (2013). Human interactivity: Problem-​solving, solution-​probing and verbal patterns in the
wild. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-​Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain: Computation, inter-
activity and human artifice (pp. 195–​221). Dordrecht: Springer.
Steffensen, S. V. (2017). The microecological grounding of language: How linguistic symbolicity extends and
transforms the human ecology. In A. Fill & H. Penz (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics (pp.
411–​423). London: Routledge.
Steffensen, S. V., & Fill, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences,
41(Pt. A), 6–​25. doi: http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.langsci.2013.08.003
Steffensen, S. V., & Harvey, M. I. (2018). Ecological meaning, linguistic meaning, and interactivity. Cognitive
Semiotics, 11(1).
Steffensen, S. V., & Kramsch, C. (2017). The ecology of second language acquisition and socialization. In P.
A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language socialization (pp. 1–​16).
Berlin: Springer.

130
 References

Steffensen, S. V., Vallée-​Tourangeau, F., & Vallée-​Tourangeau, G. (2016). Cognitive events in a problem-​
solving task: A qualitative method for investigating interactivity in the 17 Animals problem. Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 79–​105. doi: 10.1080/​20445911.2015.1095193
Stibbe, A. (2012). Animals erased: Discourse, ecology, and reconnection with the natural world. Middletown,
CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Stibbe, A. (2015). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. London: Routledge.
Taylor, T. J. (2000). Language constructing language: The implications of reflexivity for linguistic theory.
Language sciences, 22(4), 483–​499.
Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-​order languaging dynamics and second-​order language: The distributed language
view. Ecological Psychology, 23(3), 210–​245. doi: 10.1080/​10407413.2011.591274
Thibault, P. J. (2019). Simplex selves, functional synergies, and selving: Languaging in a complex world.
Language Sciences, 71, 49–​67. doi: https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.langsci.2018.03.002
Trasmundi, S. B., & Steffensen, S. V. (2016). Meaning emergence in the ecology of dialogical systems.
Psychology of Language and Communication, 20(2).
Wells, A. (2006). Rethinking cognitive computation: Turing and the science of the mind. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.
Bao, Z., & Lionel, W. (1999). The passive in Singapore English. World English, 18, 1–​11.
Bennett, P. A. (1980). English passives: A study in syntactic change and relational grammar. Lingua, 51(2),
101–​114.
Bouton, L. F. (1973). Some reasons for doubting the existence of a passive transformation. In B. B. Kachru (Eds.),
Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (pp. 70–​84). Champaign: University of
Illinois Press.
Bresnan, J. (Eds.). (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bybee, J. L., & Becker, C. (2010). Usage-​based theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of linguistic analysis (pp. 827–​855). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cao, Z. (Eds.). (2008). Hanyu fangyan dituji (yufa juan) [The maps of the Chinese dialects (Volume of
Grammar)]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Cennamo, M. (2015). Paths of grammaticalization in Romance voice systems. Paper presented at the sym-
posium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization
Scenarios”, Mainz, March, 2015.
Chappell, H. M. (2015). Linguistic areas in China for differential object marking, passive, comparative
constructions. In H. M. Chappell (Eds.), Diversity in Sinitic languages (pp. 13–​52). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. (Studies in Generative Grammar 9). Dordrecht: Foris
Publications.
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Corne, C. (1977). Seychelles Creole grammar: Elements for Indian Ocean proto-​Creole reconstruction.
(Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 91). Tübingen: Narr.
Coupe, A. R. (2018). Grammaticalization processes in the languages of South Asia. In H. Narrog & B. Heine
(Eds.), Grammaticalization from a typological perspective (pp. 189–​218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Croft, W. (2016). Typology and the future of cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 587–​602.
Croft, W. (2019). Some contributions of typology to cognitive linguistics, revisited. Presented at the 15th
International Cognitive Linguistic Conference, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–​138.
Giacalone Ramat, A. (2017). Passives and constructions that resemble passives. Folia Linguistica Historica,
51, 151–​176.
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful
elements. In J. Greenberg (Eds.), Universals of language (pp. 73–​113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Greenberg, J. H. (1990). Two approaches to language universals. In K. Denning & S. Kemmer (Eds.), On lan-
guage: Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg (pp. 702–​720). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (1990). The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language, 14(1), 25–​72.

131
 References

Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, B. (Eds.). (1996). Hanyu fangyan yufa leibian [The classification collection of the grammars of the
Chinese dialects]. Qingdao: The Qingdao Press.
Jiang, L. (1989). Beidong guanxici ‘chi’ de laiyuan chutan [A basic study in the lexical source of the passive
morpheme chi]. Zhongguo yuwen, 5, 370–​377.
Kilian-​Hatz, C. (1992). Der komitativ im Baka: eine Fallstudie zur gramatikalisierung. MA thesis, Institut für
Afrikanistik, University of Cologne.
Kiparsky, P. (2013). Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua, 125(1), 7–​33.
Kroskripty P. V. (1985). A holistic understanding of Arizona Tewa passives. Language, 61(2), 306–​328.
Lakoff, G. R. (1971). Passive resistance. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,
7, 149–​162.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, C. (1991). Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German. In E. C. Traugott & B.
Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 1 (pp. 493–​534). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Lehmann, C., de Lima, J. P., & Soares, R. (2010). Periphrastic voice with “see” in Portuguese. In G. Diewald
& E. Smirnova (Eds.), Paradigmaticity and obligatoriness (pp. 75–​100). Special Issue: Acta Linguistica
Hafnensia, 42(1).
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lü, S. (Eds.). (1996). Xiandai hanyu babai ci [The eight hundred words of Contemporary Chinese].
Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Peyraube, A. (2015). Grammatical change in Sinitic languages and its relation to typology. In H. M. Chappell
(Eds.), Diversity in Sinitic languages (pp. 53–​78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1993). Head-​driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago and Stanford, CA: University
of Chicago Press and the Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Rhee, S., & Koo, H. J. (2014). Grammaticalization of causatives and passives and their recent development
into stance markers in Korean. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50(3), 309–​337.
Ross, L. (1987). The problem of construal in social inference and social psychology. In N. Grunberg, R. E.
Nisbett, & J. Singer (Eds.), A distinctive approach to psychological research: The influence of Stanley
Schacter (pp. 87–​117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swan, M. (2000). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Verhagen, A. (2006). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–​81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vykypěl, B. (2010). Das Problem der sprachlichen elementarverwandtschaft. Munich: LINCOM.
Wang, T., & Shi, Y. (2019). Jindai Hanyu “chi” zi beidongju xingshuai de yuanyin [The motivations for the
rise and decline of the “eat” passive in Modern Chinese]. Gu Hanyu Yanjiu [Research on Ancient Chinese
Language], 2, 40–​50.
Weiner, J. E., & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 29–​58.
Wilkins, D. (1989). Mparntwe arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. PhD dis-
sertation, Australian National University, Canberra.
Wolff, E. (1983). A grammar of the Lamang language (Gwàd Làmàŋ). (Afrikanistische Forschungen 10).
Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.
Zhu, D. (1982). Yufa jiangyi [Lectures on Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

132