1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Semantic Structure in English

oa Semantic Structure in English

image of Semantic Structure in English
PDF

Syntax puts our meaning (“semantics”) into sentences, and phonology puts the sentences into the sounds that we hear and there must, surely, be a structure in the meaning that is expressed in the syntax and phonology. Some writers use the phrase “semantic structure”, but are referring to conceptual structure; since we can express our conceptual thought in many different linguistic ways, we cannot equate conceptual and semantic structures.

The research reported in this book shows semantic structure to be in part hierarchic, fitting the syntax in which it is expressed, and partly a network, fitting the nature of the mind, from which it springs. It is complex enough to provide for the emotive and imaginative dimensions of language, and for shifts of standard meanings in context, and the “rules” that control them.

Showing the full structure of English semantics requires attention to many currently topical issues, and since the underlying theory is fresh, there are fresh implications for them. The most important of those issues is information structure, which is given full treatment, showing its overall structure, and its relation to semantics and the whole grammar of English.

References

  1. Aarts, Bas
    (2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aarts, Bas , & Meyer, Charles F
    (Eds) (1995) The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adamson, Sylvia
    (1999) Literary language. In Roger Lass (Ed.), Cambridge history of the English language, Volume III, 1476–1776 (pp.187–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aitchison, Jean
    (2012) Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. 4th edition. Chichester, UK / Malden, Ma.: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Allan, Keith
    (1986) Linguistic meaning. Volume I. London / New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Allan, Keith , & Jaszczolt, Kasia M
    (Eds) (2012) The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139022453
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453 [Google Scholar]
  7. Allen, Cynthia L
    (1995) Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ameka, Felix
    (1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics,18(2–3), 101–118. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90048‑G
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G [Google Scholar]
  9. Andreewsky, Evelyne ; Rosenthal, Rosen ; & Bourcier, Daniele
    (1985) Meaning without lexicon: A computational model for the resolution of lexical ambiguities. Psychological relevance. In Hoppenbrouwers et al. (Eds.), Meaning and the lexicon (pp.380–383).
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Armstrong, Sharon Lee ; Gleitman, Lila R. ; & Gleitman, Henry
    (1983) What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263–308. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(83)90012‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4 [Google Scholar]
  11. Asp, Melissa
    (2013) The twin paradoxes of unconscious choice and unintentional agents. In Lise Fontaine (Ed.), Systemic functional linguistics: exploring choice (pp.161–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.011 [Google Scholar]
  12. Barsalou, Lawrence W
    (1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. doi: 10.3758/BF03196968
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1992a) Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (1992b) Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer , & Eva Feder Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp.21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2005) Situated conceptualisations. In Cohen & Lefebvre (Eds.), (pp.Handbook of categorization in cognitive science,620–636). doi: 10.1016/B978‑008044612‑7/50083‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50083-4 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) The human conceptual system. In Spivey et al (Eds.), (pp.The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics,239–258). doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139029377.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377.017 [Google Scholar]
  18. Barsalou, Lawrence , & Wiemer-Hastings, Katja
    (2005) Situating abstract concepts. In Pecher & Zwaan (Eds.), (pp.Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking,129–163). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bates, E. , & MacWhinney, Bryan
    (1982) Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp.173–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bauer, Laurie
    (2004) Adjectives, compounds and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1) (special issue, World of Words: a Tribute to Arne Zettersten), 7–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bencini, Giulia M.L
    (2013) Psycholinguistics. In Thomas Hoffmann , & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.379–396). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Biber, Douglas ; Johansson, Stig ; Leech, Geoffrey ; Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Bierwisch, Manfred , & Schreuder, Robert
    (1992) From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(92)90039‑K
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90039-K [Google Scholar]
  24. Birner, Betty J. , & Gregory, Ward
    (1998) Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.40
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bisang, Walter
    (2008) Precategoriality and syntax-based parts of speech: The case of late archaic Chinese. Studies in Language, 32(3), 568–589. doi: 10.1075/sl.32.3.05bis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.3.05bis [Google Scholar]
  26. Blakemore, Diane
    (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bloom, L
    (1933) Language. New York: Holt.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Bohm, Isabel C. ; Altmann, Ulrike ; Lubrich, Oliver ; Menninghaus, Winifried ; & Jacobs, Arthur M
    (2013) When we like what we know – A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain and Language, 124(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Bolinger, Dwight
    (1967) Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 1–34. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(67)90018‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(67)90018-6 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1986) Intonation and its parts: Melody. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Borer, Hagit
    (1998) Morphology and syntax. In Spencer & Zwicky (Eds.), (pp.The handbook of morphology,151–190).Online: Chapter 8. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00011.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00011.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Boye, Kasper , & Harder, Peter
    (2009) Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 16(1), 9–43. doi: 10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.03boy [Google Scholar]
  33. Braisby, N.R
    (1990) Situating word meaning. In Robin Cooper , Kuniaki Mukai , & John Perry (Eds.), Situation theory and its applications (pp.315–342). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Brownell, Hiram H
    (1988) Appreciation of metaphoric and connotative word meaning by brain-damaged patients. In Christine Chiarello (Ed.), Right hemisphere contributions to lexical semantics (pp.19–31). Heidelberg, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑73674‑2_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73674-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Bundegaard, Peer F. ; Ostergaard, Svend ; & Stjernfelt, Frederik
    (2008) Waterproof fire stations? Conceptual schemata and cognitive operations in compound constructions. Semiotica, 161(1), 363–393.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Büring, Daniel
    (2007) Semantics, intonation and information structure. In Ramchand & Reiss (Eds.), (pp.Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches,435–473).
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Burnley, David
    (1992) Lexis and semantics. In Norman Blake (Ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume II, 1066–1476 (pp.409–499). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Butt, Miriam
    (2006) Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164696
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164696 [Google Scholar]
  39. Bybee, Joan
    (2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Talmy Givón , & Bertram F. Malle (Eds.), Evolution of Language out of Pre-language (pp.109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  40. Chafe, Wallace L
    (2001) The analysis of discourse flow. In Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen , & Heidi Ehernberger Hamilton , (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp.673–684). Oxford / Malden, Ma: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, Melinda
    (2004) Affect in language interpretation. In Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp.37ff.). Stanford Ca: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Chiarcos, Christian ; Berry, Claus ; & Grabski, Michael
    (2011) Salience in linguistics and beyond. In Christian Chiarcos , Claus Berry , & Michael Grabski (Eds.), Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse (pp.1–28). Berlin / New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110241020.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241020.1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Citron, Francesca M.M
    (2012) Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: A review of recent electrophysiological and haemodynamic neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language, 122, 211–226). doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  44. Citron, Francesca M.M. ; Weekes, Brendan S. & Ferstl, Evelyn C
    (2014) Arousal and emotional valence interact in written word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1257–1267. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.897734
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.897734 [Google Scholar]
  45. Clark, Herbert H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  46. Coates, Richard
    (2000) Singular definite expressions with a unique denotatum and the limits of properhood. Linguistics: An interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences, 38, 1161–1171. doi: 10.1515/ling.2000.024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2000.024 [Google Scholar]
  47. COBUILD
    (2001) Collins COBUILD English dictionary for advanced learners. 3rd ed. Glasgow: Harper Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Cohen, Henri , & Lefebvre, Claire
    (2005) Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Collins, Peter
    (2009) Information-packaging constructions. In Pam Peters , Peter Collins , & Adam Smith (Eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond (pp.73–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g39.05col
     https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g39.05col [Google Scholar]
  50. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (1986) An introduction to English intonation. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1993) English speech rhythm: Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.25 [Google Scholar]
  52. Croft, William
    (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2003) Typology and universals. 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1990. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman & Fried (Eds.), (pp.,273–309).
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2007) Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language, 31(2), 409–430. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.2.05cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.05cro [Google Scholar]
  56. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Croft, William , & Cruse, D. Alan
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  58. Cruse, Alan
    (2000) Aspects of the microstructure of word meanings. In Ravin & Leacock (Eds.), (pp.Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches,30–31).
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2011) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. 3rd ed.; 1st ed. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Cruttenden, Alan
    (1997) Intonation. 2nd edition; 1st edition 1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166973
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166973 [Google Scholar]
  61. Crystal, David
    (1967) English. Lingua, 17, 24–56. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(66)90003‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(66)90003-9 [Google Scholar]
  62. (1988) Language play. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Culicover, Peter W. , & McNally, Louise
    (Eds.) (1988) Syntax and semantics volume 29: The limits of syntax. San Diego / London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Dahl, Östen
    (1976) Grammar and meaning: Papers on syntactic and semantic topics. Lingua, 39(1), 158–164. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(76)90063‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(76)90063-2 [Google Scholar]
  65. Davis, Barbara L. , & MacNeilage, Peter F
    (2002) The internal structure of the syllable. In Talmy Givón , & Bertram F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp.135–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.53.08dav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.08dav [Google Scholar]
  66. De Deyne, Simon ; Voorspoels, Wouter ; Verheyen, Steven ; Navarro, Daniel J. ; & Storms, Gert
    (2014) Accounting for graded structure in adjective categories with valence-based opposition relationships. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29( 5), 568–583. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.794294
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.794294 [Google Scholar]
  67. de Smet, Hendrik , & Heyvaert, Liesbet
    (2011) The meaning of the English present participle. English Language and Linguistics, 15(3), 473–498. doi: 10.1017/S136067431100013X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431100013X [Google Scholar]
  68. DeLancey, Scott
    (1981) An interpretation of ergativity and related patterns. Language, 37(3), 626ff. doi: 10.2307/414343
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414343 [Google Scholar]
  69. (1987) Transitivity in grammar and cognition. In Russell S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp.57–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.11.04del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.04del [Google Scholar]
  70. Diessel, Holger
    (2006) Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics,17 (4), 463–489. doi: 10.1515/COG.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  71. Dik, Simon C. , & Hengeveld, Kees
    (1997) Theory of functional grammar, Parts 1 & 2. 2nd ed. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Dimroth, Christine ; Gretsch, Petra ; Jordens, Peter ; Perdue, Clive ; & Starren, Marianne
    (2003) A stage model for first and second language development. In Christine Dimroth , & Marianne Starren (Eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition (pp.65–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sibil.26.05dim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.26.05dim [Google Scholar]
  73. Dingemanse, Mark
    (2011) The use and meaning of ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Dixon, Robert M.W
    (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2005) A semantic approach to English grammar. 2nd edition; 1st edition 1981. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Donohue, Mark
    (2008) Covert word classes: Making your own syntax in Tukang Besi. Studies in Language, 32, (3), 590–609. doi: 10.1075/sl.32.2.03don
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.2.03don [Google Scholar]
  77. Downing, Pamela
    (1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842. doi: 10.2307/412913
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  78. Dowty, David
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  79. Du Bois, John W
    (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4), 805–855. doi: 10.2307/415719
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2003) Discourse and grammar. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), (pp.The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure,17–88).
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Elman, Jeffrey L
    (2009) On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01023.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01023.x [Google Scholar]
  82. Engelberg, Stefan
    (2011) Lexical decomposition: Foundational issues. In Maienborn et al. (Eds.), (pp.Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning,124–144). doi: 10.1515/9783110226614.124
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.124 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ernst, Thomas
    (2012) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria ; Jungl, Manuel Leonetti ; & Ahern, Aoife
    (Eds.) (2011) Procedural meaning: problems and perspectives. Bingley: Emerald. doi: 10.1163/9780857240941
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780857240941 [Google Scholar]
  85. Evans, Vyvyan
    (2009) How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  86. Fawcett, Robin P
    (2000) The theory of syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.206
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.206 [Google Scholar]
  87. Feist, Jim
    (2011) Compound constructions: Waterproof three-storey brick and tile fire stations?Semiotica, 187(1), 337–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. (2012a) Premodifiers in English: Their structure and significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. (2012b) What controls the ‘genitive variation’ in Present-Day English?Studies in Language, 36(2), 261–299. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.2.03fei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.2.03fei [Google Scholar]
  90. (2013) Noun incorporation in English. Functions of Language, 20(2), 159–184. doi: 10.1075/fol.20.2.02fei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20.2.02fei [Google Scholar]
  91. Ferreira, Victor S. , & Slevc, L. Robert
    (2007) Grammatical encoding. In Gaskell (Ed.), (pp.Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics,453–170).
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Ferris, Connor
    (1983) The meaning of syntax: A study in the adjectives of English. London / New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Fetzer, Anita , & Speyer, Augustin
    (2012) Discourse relations in English and German discourse: Local and not so local constraints. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(4), 413ff. doi: 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0025 [Google Scholar]
  94. Fillenbaum, Samuel , & Rapoport, Amnon
    (1971) Structures in the subjective lexicon. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Fillmore, Charles J. , & Atkins, B.T.S
    (2000) Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. In Ravin & Leacock (Eds.), (pp.Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches,91–110).
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Firth, J.R
    (1957) Modes of meaning. InPapers in linguistics 1934–1951 (pp.190–215). London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Fisher, Olga , & Nänny, Max
    (2001) The motivated sign. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ill.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.2 [Google Scholar]
  98. Flores d’Arcais, G.B. , & Schreuder, R
    (1987) Psychological Research, 49, 153–159.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Fodor, Jerry , & Lepore, Ernest
    (2002) The compositionality papers. Oxford: Clarendon.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Fortescue, Michael
    (2007) The non-linearity of speech production. In Hannay & Steen (Eds.), (pp.Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie,337–351). doi: 10.1075/slcs.83.18for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.18for [Google Scholar]
  101. (2009) A neural network model of lexical organisation. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. (2010) A neural network approach to compositionality and co-compositionality. The Mental Lexicon, 5(2), 180–204. doi: 10.1075/ml.5.2.03for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.2.03for [Google Scholar]
  103. Fretheim, Thorstein
    (2011) Description as indication: The use of conceptual meaning for a procedural purpose. In Escandell-Vidal et al (Eds.), (pp.Procedural meaning: problems and perspectives,131ff.).
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Fries, Peter H
    (1983) On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. In János S. Petöfi , & Emel Sözer (Eds.), Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts (pp.116–146). Hamburg: Helmet Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Gagné, Christina L. ; Spalding, Thomas L. ; & Gorrie, Melissa C
    (2005) Sentential context and the interpretation of familiar open-compounds and novel modifier-noun phrases. Language and Speech, 48(2), 203–221). doi: 10.1177/00238309050480020401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309050480020401 [Google Scholar]
  106. Garrod, Simon & Pickering, Martin J
    (2007) Alignment in dialogue. In Gaskell (Ed.), (pp.Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics,453–452).
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Gaskell, M. Gareth
    (Ed.) (2007) Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  108. Geeraerts, Dirk
    (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Gentner, Dedre , & Boroditsky, Lera
    (2001) Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In Melissa Bowerman & Stephen C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp.215–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620669.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620669.010 [Google Scholar]
  110. Gerdts, Donna B
    (1998) Incorporation. In Spencer & Zwicky (Eds.), (pp.The handbook of morphology,84–100). Online: Chapter 8. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00007.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  111. Gibbs, Raymond W
    (2005) Embodiment in metaphorical imagination. In Pecher & Zwaan (Eds.), (pp.Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking,65–92). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.004 [Google Scholar]
  112. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jnr; Wilson, Nicole L. ; & Bryant, Gregory A
    (2012) Figurative language: Normal adult cognitive research. In Spivey & others(Eds.), (pp.The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics,455–484). doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139029377.032
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377.032 [Google Scholar]
  113. Giegerich, Heinz J
    (1999) Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486470
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486470 [Google Scholar]
  114. Gil, David
    (2005) Isolating-monocategorial associational language. In Cohen & Lefebvre (Eds.), (pp.Handbook of categorization in cognitive science,348–380). doi: 10.1016/B978‑008044612‑7/50070‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50070-6 [Google Scholar]
  115. Gillon, Brendan S
    (2005) Semantic categorisation. In Cohen & Lefebvre (Eds.), (pp.Handbook of categorization in cognitive science,167–187). doi: 10.1016/B978‑008044612‑7/50062‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50062-7 [Google Scholar]
  116. Givón, Talmy
    (1970) Notes on the semantic structure of English adjectives. Language, 46(4), 816–837. doi: 10.2307/412258
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412258 [Google Scholar]
  117. (1979) On understanding grammar. New York / San Francisco / London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. (1988) Pragmatics of word order: Predictability, importance and attention. In Michael Hammond , Edith Moravcsik , & Jessica Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp.243–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.17.18giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.18giv [Google Scholar]
  119. (1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.engram1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.engram1 [Google Scholar]
  120. (2009) The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.146
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  121. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Goldberg, Adele E
    (1999) The emergence of the semantics of argument constructions. In Bryan MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp.197–212). Mahwah, NJ / London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Gundel, Jeannette K
    (2012) Pragmatics and information structure. In Allan & Jaszczolt (Eds.), (pp.The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics,585–598). doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.032
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.032 [Google Scholar]
  124. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    (2004) The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511616983
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 [Google Scholar]
  125. Haiman, John
    (1983) Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59(4), 781–819. doi: 10.2307/413373
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413373 [Google Scholar]
  126. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1977) Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In Teun A. van Dijk & Janos S. Petöfi (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions (studies in text theory and text analysis) (pp.176–225). Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. (1989) Grammar and daily life: Concurrence and complementarity. In Jonathon Webster (Ed) (2012) On grammar (volume 1 of Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday) (pp.369–383).
     [Google Scholar]
  128. (2014) An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed.; 1st ed. 1985. London: Hodder Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. (2000) Grammar and daily life. In Lockwood et al. (Eds.), (pp.Functional approaches to language, culture and cognition: Papers in honour of Sydney M. Lamb,221–238). doi: 10.1075/cilt.163.21hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.163.21hal [Google Scholar]
  130. Halliday, M.A.K. , & William S. Greaves
    (2008) Intonation in the grammar of English. London / Oakville, Ct: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Halliday, M.A.K. , & Hasan, Ruqaiya
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Halliday, M.A.K. , & Matthiessen, M.I.M
    (1999) Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London / New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Hanks, Patrick
    (2013) Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge, Ma. /London: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  134. Hannay, Mike , & Steen, Gerard J
    (2007) Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.83
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83 [Google Scholar]
  135. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
    (2012) A pragmatic approach to historical semantics with specific reference to markers of clausal negation in mediaeval French. In Kathryn Allan , & Justyna A. Robinson (Eds.),Current methods in historical semantics (pp.233–257). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Hanson, Catherine , & Hanson, Stephen José
    (2005) Categorization in neuroscience: Brain response to objects and events. In Cohen & Lefebvre (Eds.), (pp.Handbook of categorization in cognitive science,119–140). doi: 10.1016/B978‑008044612‑7/50060‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50060-3 [Google Scholar]
  137. Harder, Peter
    (1996) Functional semantics: A theory of meaning, structure and tense in English. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110818758
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110818758 [Google Scholar]
  138. (2007) Grammar flow and procedural knowledge: Structure and function at the interface between grammar and discourse. In Hannay & Steen (Eds.), (pp.Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie,309–335). doi: 10.1075/slcs.83.17har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.17har [Google Scholar]
  139. Hasan, Ruqaiya , & Fries, Peter H
    (1995) Reflections on subject and theme: An introduction. In Ruqaiya Hasan , & Peter H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective (pp.xiii–xlv). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.118.01has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.118.01has [Google Scholar]
  140. Haspelmath, Martin
    (2003) The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), (pp.The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure,211–242).
     [Google Scholar]
  141. (2007) Pre-established categories don’t exist. Linguistic Typology, 11, 119–132. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  142. (2009) Terminology of case. In A.L Mal’chukov , & Andrew Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp.The handbook of morphology,505–517). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Hawkins, John A
    (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  145. Hengeveld, Kees ; Rijkhoff, Jan ; & Siewierska, Anna
    (2004) Part-of-speech systems and word order. Journal of Linguistics, 40(3), 527–570. doi: 10.1017/S0022226704002762
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226704002762 [Google Scholar]
  146. Hengeveld, Kees , & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
    (2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  147. Herbst, Thomas , & Götz-Votteler, Katrin
    (2007) Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198775
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198775 [Google Scholar]
  148. Hinterhölzl, Roland , & van Kemenade, Ans
    (2012) The interaction between syntax, information structure, and prosody in word order change. In Terttu Nevalainen , & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp.803–821). New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Hockett, Charles F
    (1960) The origin of speech. Scientific American, 205, 88–96. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
     https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  150. Hoppenbrouwers, G.A.J. ; Seuren, P.A.M. ; & Weijters, A.J.M.M
    (Eds.) (1985) Meaning and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Hopper, Paul J. , & Thompson, Sandra A
    (1984) The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60(4), 703–752. doi: 10.1353/lan.1984.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0020 [Google Scholar]
  152. Horgan, Kerry
    (2012) Connectionism, dynamical cognition, and nonclassical compositional representation. In Werning et al. (Eds.), (pp.Oxford handbook of compositionality,557ff.).
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Hsu, Chun-Ting ; Jacobs, Arthur M. ; Citron, Francesca M.M. ; & Conrad, Markus
    (2015) The emotion potential of words and passages in reading Harry Potter – an fMRI study. Brain and Language, 142, 96–114. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  154. Huddleston, Rodney , & Pullum, Geoffrey K
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  155. Hudson, Richard A
    (1984) Word grammar. Oxford / New York: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Hudson, Richard , & Holmes, Jasper
    (2000) Re-cycling in the encyclopedia. In Peeters (Ed.), (pp.The lexicon encyclopedia interface,259–290).
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Inchaurralde, Carlos
    (2000) Lexicopedia. In Peeters (Ed.), (pp.The lexicon encyclopedia interface,97–114).
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Jackendoff, Ray
    (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  159. (1972) Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. (2011) Conceptual semantics. In Maienborn et al. (Eds.), (pp.Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning,688–709). doi: 10.1515/9783110226614.688
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.688 [Google Scholar]
  161. Jacobson, Roman
    (1936/1990) Contribution to the general theory of case. (Combining the 1936 paper with parts of the 1958 revised paper; translated from German). In Linda R. Waugh , & Monique Monville-Burston (Eds.) (1990) On Language (pp.332–385). Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Jakobson, Roman
    (1960) Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–377). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. Janssen, Theo A.J.M
    (2007) A speaker/hearer-based grammar: The case of possessives and compounds. In Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (Eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie (pp.353–388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.83.19jan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.19jan [Google Scholar]
  164. Janssen, Theo M.V
    (2012) Compositionality: Its historical context. In Werning et al. , (pp.Oxford handbook of compositionality,19–46).
     [Google Scholar]
  165. Jespersen, Otto
    (1924) Philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Jung, Kiju ; Shavitt, Sharon ; Viswanathan, Madhu ; & Hilbe, Joseph M
    (2014) Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8782–8787. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1402786111
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402786111 [Google Scholar]
  167. Kamp, Hans , & Partee, Barbara
    (1995) Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57, 129–191. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(94)00659‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00659-9 [Google Scholar]
  168. Kamp, Hans , & Reyle, U
    (2011) Discourse Representation Theory. In Maienborn et al. (Eds.), (pp.Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning,872–922).
     [Google Scholar]
  169. Karmiloff-Smith, Annette
    (1979) Micro- and macro- developmental changes in language acquisition and other representational systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 91–118. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0302_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0302_1 [Google Scholar]
  170. Karmiloff, Kyra , & Karmiloff-Smith, Annette
    (2001) Pathways to language: From fetus to adolescent. Cambridge, Ma. / London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  171. Katz, Graham
    (2008) Modification of state verbs. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (pp.220–248). Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  172. Kemmer, Suzanne
    (1993) The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [Google Scholar]
  173. (1994) Middle voice: Transitivity and the elaboration of events. In Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp.179–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.27.09kem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.09kem [Google Scholar]
  174. Kiparsky, Paul
    (1998) Partitive case and aspect. In Miriam Butt & Wilhelm Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.265–307). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  175. Kirsner, Robert S
    (2011) Instructional meanings, iconicity and l’arbitraire du signe in the analysis of the Afrikaans demonstratives. In Bob de Jonge & Yishai Tobin (Eds.), Linguistic theory and empirical evidence (pp.97–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins doi: 10.1075/sfsl.64.05kir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.64.05kir [Google Scholar]
  176. Klein, Wolfgang
    (2004) How time is encoded. In Wolfgang Klein & Ping Li (Eds.), The expression of time (pp.39–82). Berlin / New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  177. Koptjevskaya-Tamm, Maria
    (2012) New directions in lexical typology. Linguistics, 50(3), 373–394.
     [Google Scholar]
  178. Kravchenko, Alexander V
    (2007) Essential properties of language, or, why language is not a code. Language Sciences,29, 650–671. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  179. Kuczaj, Stan A. , & Hendry, Jennifer L
    (2003) Does language help animals think?In Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp.237–276). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Labov, W
    (1973) Boundaries of words and their meanings. In C.J. Bailey & R. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analysing variation in English (pp.340–373). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  181. Lakoff, George , & Johnson, Mark
    (2003) Metaphors we live by. 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1980. Chicago /London: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  182. Lamb, Sydney M
    (1966) Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  183. (1999) Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of the brain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.170
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.170 [Google Scholar]
  184. (2004) Language and reality. London / New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  185. Lambrecht, Knud
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  186. Langacker, Ronald W
    (1987a) Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  187. (1987b) Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 33–94. doi: 10.2307/415384
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  188. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  189. (2005) Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In Pecher & Zwaan (Eds.), (pp.Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking,164–197). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008 [Google Scholar]
  190. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  191. Lascaratou, Chryssoula
    (2007) The Language of pain: Expression or description?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.9 [Google Scholar]
  192. Leech, Geoffrey
    (1974) Semantics. London: Pelican.
     [Google Scholar]
  193. Leech, Geoffrey N. , & Li, Lu
    (1995) Indeterminacy between noun phrases and adjective phrases as complements of the English verb. In Aarts & Meyer (Eds.), (pp.The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description,183–202).
     [Google Scholar]
  194. Leffel, Timothy ; Lauter, Miriam ; Westerlund, Masha ; & Pylkkänen, Liina
    (2014) Restrictive vs. non-restrictive composition: A magnetoencephalography study. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1191–1204. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.956765
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.956765 [Google Scholar]
  195. Lehmann, Christian
    (2008) Roots, stems and word classes. Studies in Language, 32(3), 546–567. doi: 10.1075/sl.32.3.04leh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.3.04leh [Google Scholar]
  196. Lemmens, Maarten
    (1998) Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity: Causative constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.166
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.166 [Google Scholar]
  197. Levelt, Willem J.M
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  198. (1993) Accessing words in speech and production: Stages, Processes and representations. In Levelt (Ed.), (pp.Lexical access in speech production,1–22).
     [Google Scholar]
  199. (Ed.) (1993) Lexical access in speech production. 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1991. Cambridge Ma. / London: Blackwell. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1840‑8_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1840-8_11 [Google Scholar]
  200. Levin, Beth
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  201. Lockwood, David G. ; Fries, Peter H. ; & Copeland, James E
    (Eds.) (2000) Functional approaches to language, culture and cognition: Papers in honour of Sydney M. Lamb. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.163
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.163 [Google Scholar]
  202. Lohndahl, Terje
    (2012). Toward the end of argument structure. In Maria Cristina Cuervo & Yves Roberge (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 38: The end of argument structure? (pp.155–184). Bingley: Emerald.
     [Google Scholar]
  203. Lüdtke, Jana ; Meyer-Sickendieck, Burkhard ; & Jacobs, Arthur M
    (2014) Immersing in the stillness of an early morning: Testing the mood empathy hypothesis of poetry reception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 363–377. doi: 10.1037/a0036826
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036826 [Google Scholar]
  204. Lyons, John
    (1966) Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. Journal of Linguistics, 2, 209–236. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700001511
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001511 [Google Scholar]
  205. (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  206. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  207. McClelland, James L. ; Rumelhart, David E. ; & Hinton, G.E
    (1986) The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In David E. Rumelhart & James L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, volume 1: Foundations (pp.3–44). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  208. McGregor, William
    (1997) Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press / New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  209. McNally, Louise
    (1988) On the linguistic encoding of information packaging instructions. In Culicover & McNally (Eds.), (pp.Syntax and semantics volume 29: The limits of syntax,161–183).
     [Google Scholar]
  210. Mcnamara, Timothy P
    (2003) Semantic priming: The state of the art. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  211. MacWhinney, Bryan
    (1999) The emergence of language from embodiment. In Bryan MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp.213–256). Mahwah, NJ / London: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  212. (2005) The emergence of grammar from perspective. In Pecher & Zwaan (Eds.), (pp.Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking,198–223). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.009 [Google Scholar]
  213. Maienborn, Claudia ; von Heusinger, Klaus ; & Portner, Paul
    (Eds.) (2011) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110226614
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614 [Google Scholar]
  214. Malinowski, Bronislaw
    (1929) The sexual life of savages in north-western Melanesia: An ethnographic account of courtship, marriage and family life among the natives of Trobriand Islands, British New Guinea. London: Routledge & Paul(1948).
     [Google Scholar]
  215. (1930) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards , The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and the science of symbolism (pp.296–366). 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1923. New York: Harcourt Brace / London: Routledge & Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  216. Marantz, Alec
    (2013) No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 905–916. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.779385
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.779385 [Google Scholar]
  217. Marchand, Hans
    (1969) The categories and types of present-day English word formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1960. Munich: Beck.
     [Google Scholar]
  218. Matthews, Gerald ; Deary, Ian J. ; & Whiteman, Martha C
    (2003) Personality traits. 2nd ed. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511812736
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812736 [Google Scholar]
  219. Matthews, P.H
    (1981) Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  220. Mel’cuk, Igor A
    (2001) Communicative organisation in natural language: The semantic communicative structure of sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.57
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.57 [Google Scholar]
  221. (2012) Semantics: From meaning to text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.129
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.129 [Google Scholar]
  222. Meyer, Charles F
    (1995) Grammatical relations in English. In Aarts & Meyer (Eds.), (pp.The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description,27–39).
     [Google Scholar]
  223. Miller, D. Gary
    (2014) English lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689880.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689880.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  224. Miller, George A. , & Fellbaum, Christiane
    (1991) The semantic networks of English. Cognition, 41(1–3), 197–229. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90036‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90036-4 [Google Scholar]
  225. Mitchell, Bruce
    (1985) Old English syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  226. Mithun, Marianne
    (1984) The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60, 847–892. doi: 10.1353/lan.1984.0038
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1984.0038 [Google Scholar]
  227. (2012) Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2165–2182. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  228. Mosel, Ulrike , & Hovdhaugen, Even
    (1992) Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press / Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  229. Murphy, Gregory L
    (1988) Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529–562. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2 [Google Scholar]
  230. Murphy, M. Lynne
    (2003) Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy, and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486494
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486494 [Google Scholar]
  231. Muysken, Pieter
    (2008) A modular approach to grammatical categories: Evidence from language diversity and contact. In Cohen & Lefebvre (Eds.), (pp.Handbook of categorization in cognitive science,46–69).
     [Google Scholar]
  232. Newmeyer, Frederick J
    (2000) The discrete nature of syntactic categories: Against a prototype-based account. In Robert D. Borsley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 32: The nature and function of syntactic categories (pp.221–250). New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0092‑4563(00)80024‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-4563(00)80024-0 [Google Scholar]
  233. Nuckolls, Janis B
    (1999). The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 225–252. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.225
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.225 [Google Scholar]
  234. Ochs, E
    (1992) Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp.335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  235. Őstman, Jan-Ola , & Fried, Mirjam
    (Eds.) (2005) Cognitive grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3 [Google Scholar]
  236. Partee
    (2010) Privative adjectives: Subsective plus coercion. In Rainer Bäuerle , U. Reyle & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse: Essays offered to Hans Kamp (pp.273–285). Bingley: Emerald. doi: 10.1163/9789004253162_011
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253162_011 [Google Scholar]
  237. Pecher, Diane , & Zwaan, Rolf A
    (Eds.) (2005) Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968 [Google Scholar]
  238. Peeters, Bert
    (Ed.) (2000) The lexicon encyclopedia interface. Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  239. Pennebaker, James
    (2011) The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  240. Peirce, Charles Sanders
    (1931–1958) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Volume 2: Elements of logic. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  241. Petrova, Svetlana
    (2012) The impact of focusing and defocusing on word order: Changes at the periphery in Old English and Old High German. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp.846–858). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  242. Pickering, Martin J. , & Branigan, Holly P
    (1998) The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production.Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2592
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2592 [Google Scholar]
  243. Pietroski, Paul M
    (2012) Semantic monadicity with conceptual polyadicity. In Werning et al. (Eds.), (pp.Oxford handbook of compositionality,129–148).
     [Google Scholar]
  244. Prince, Ellen
    (1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.223–255). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  245. Prinz, Jesse
    (2002) Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, Ma. / London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  246. Pulvermüller, Friedemann
    (1999) Words in the brain’s language. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 253–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X9900182X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X [Google Scholar]
  247. (2002) The neuroscience of language: On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  248. Pulvermüller, F. , & Knoblauch, A
    (2009) Discrete combinatorial circuits emerging in neural networks: A mechanism for rules of grammar in the human brain?Neural Networks, 22(2), 161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2009.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2009.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  249. Pustejovsky, James
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  250. (2012) Co-compositionality in grammar. In Werning et al. (Eds.), (pp.Oxford handbook of compositionality,371–384).
     [Google Scholar]
  251. Quirk, Randolph ; Greenbaum, Sidney ; Leech, Geoffrey ; & Svartvik, Jan
    (1972) A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  252. (1985) A comprehensive grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  253. Radford, Andrew R
    (1988) Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840425
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840425 [Google Scholar]
  254. Ramchand, Gillian
    (1997) Aspect and predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  255. Ramchand, Gillian , & Reiss, Charles
    (Eds.) (2007) Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  256. Ravin, Yael , & Leacock, Claudia
    (Eds.) (2002) Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  257. Redeker, Gisela
    (2006) Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In Kerstin Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp.339–358). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  258. Reid, Wallis Hoch
    (1991) Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London / New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  259. Reid, Wallis ; Otheguy, Ricardo ; & Stern, Nancy
    (Eds.) (2002) Signal, meaning & message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.48
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.48 [Google Scholar]
  260. Reverberi, Carlo ; Kuhlen, Anna ; Abutalebi, Jubin ; Greulich, R. Stefan ; Costa, Albert ; Seyed-Allaei, Shimas ; & Haynes, John-Dylan
    (2015) Language control in bilinguals: Intention to speak vs. execution of speech. Brain and Language, 144, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  261. Rickheit, Gert , & Sichelschmidt, Lorenz
    (2007) Valency and cognition – A notion in transition. In Herbst & Götz-Votteler (Eds.), (pp.Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues,163–182).
     [Google Scholar]
  262. Riehl, Claudia Maria , & Kilian-Hatz, Christa
    (2005) Structure and function of incorporation processes in compounding. In F.K. Erhard Voeltz (Ed.), Studies in African linguistic typology (pp.36ff.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.64.20rie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.64.20rie [Google Scholar]
  263. Rijkhoff, Jan
    (2002) The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  264. (2008) Descriptive and discourse referential modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase. Linguistics, 46(4), 789–829. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.026
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.026 [Google Scholar]
  265. Roelofs, Ardi
    (1993) A spreading activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. In Levelt (Ed.), (pp.Lexical access in speech production,107–142).
     [Google Scholar]
  266. Ruhl, Charles
    (2002) Data, comprehensiveness, monosemy. In Reid et al. (Eds.), (pp.Signal, meaning & message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics,171–190). doi: 10.1075/sfsl.48.11ruh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.48.11ruh [Google Scholar]
  267. Sandra, Dominiek , & Sally Rice
    (1995) Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89–100. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  268. Sanford, Anthony J
    (2008) Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17(1–2), 188–206. doi: 10.1111/1468‑0017.00195
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00195 [Google Scholar]
  269. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    (1915)  Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye (Eds.), Course in general linguistics. Trans. Ray Harris 1983 London: Duckworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  270. Schreuder, Robert , & Flores d’Arcais , Giovanni B
    (1989) Psycholinguistic issues in the lexical representation of meaning. In William Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp.409–436). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  271. Schreuder, Robert ; Flores d’Arcais, Giovanni B. ; & Glazenborg, Ge
    (1985) Semantic decomposition and word recognition. In Hoppenbrouwers et al. (Eds.), (pp.Meaning and the lexicon,108–114).
     [Google Scholar]
  272. Schlesinger, I.M
    (1995) On the semantics of the object. In Aarts & Meyer (Eds.), (pp.The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description,54–74).
     [Google Scholar]
  273. Schwanenflugel, Paula J
    (1991) Why are abstract concepts hard to understand?In Paula J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp.223–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  274. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
    (2002) Shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles. 5th edition; 1st edition 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  275. Sinclair, John
    (1998) The lexical item. In Edda Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp.1–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.171.02sin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.171.02sin [Google Scholar]
  276. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie , & Taverniers, Miriam
    (Eds.) (2003) Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.236
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.236 [Google Scholar]
  277. Slobin, D
    (1970) Universals of grammatical development in children. In G.B. Flores d’Arcais , & W.J.M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (pp.174–184). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  278. Smith, Mark
    (2010) Pragmatic functions and lexical categories. Linguistics, 48(3), 717–777. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.022 [Google Scholar]
  279. Spencer, Andrew , & Zwicky, Arnold M
    (Eds.) (1998) The handbook of morphology. Oxford / Malden, Ma.: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  280. Spivey, Michael J. ; Richardson, Daniel C. ; & Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica
    (2005) Perceptual-motor and image schematic infrastructure. In Pecher & Zwaan (Eds.), (pp.Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking,246–281). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.011 [Google Scholar]
  281. Spivey, Michael J. ; McRae, Ken ; & Joanisse, Marc F
    (Eds.) (2012) The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139029377
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377 [Google Scholar]
  282. Štalnaker, R.C
    (1978) AssertionIn P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Volume 9: Pragmatics (pp.315–332). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  283. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    (2003) Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In Gunter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp.413–444). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110900019.413
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.413 [Google Scholar]
  284. Štekauer, Pavol ; Valera, Salvador ; & Körtvélyessy, Lívia
    (2012) Word formation in the world’s languages: A typological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511895005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895005 [Google Scholar]
  285. Stewart, Terrence , & Eliasmith, Chris
    (2012) Compositionality and biologically plausible models. In Werning & others(Eds.), (pp.Oxford handbook of compositionality,596–615).
     [Google Scholar]
  286. Swee, Genevieve , & Shirmer, Annett
    (2015) On the importance of being vocal: Saying ‘ow’ improves pain tolerance. Journal of Pain. Online: doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.002.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  287. Taylor, Ann , & Pintzuk, Susan
    (2012) The effect of information structure on object position in Old English: A pilot study. In Anneli Meurman-Solin , María José López-Couso & Bettelou Los (Eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English (pp.47–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  288. Taylor, John R
    (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  289. (2003) Cognitive grammar (2nd edition). Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  290. Tench, Paul
    (1996) The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.
     [Google Scholar]
  291. Thompson, Sandra
    (1978) Modern English from a typological point of view: Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte, 54, 19–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  292. Thompson, Sandra A. , & Hopper, Paul J
    (2001) Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp.27–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  293. Timberlake, Alan
    (1975) Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. Slavic and East European Journal, 19(2), 123–138. doi: 10.2307/306765
     https://doi.org/10.2307/306765 [Google Scholar]
  294. Tobin, Yishai
    (1990) Semiotics and linguistics. London / New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  295. Toman, Jindrich
    (2001) Word syntax. In Spencer & Zwicky (Eds.), (pp.The handbook of morphology,306–321). Online: Chapter 15. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00018.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631226949.2001.00018.x [Google Scholar]
  296. Tomasello, Michael
    (Ed.) (2003) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume 2. Mahwah, NJ / London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  297. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    (2008) Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language: Vol. 1 The Beginnings to 1066 (pp.168–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  298. Trousdale, Nikolas
    (2010) The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  299. Tucker, Don M
    (2002) Embodied meaning: An evolutionary developmental analysis of adaptive semantics. In Givón & Malle (Eds.), (pp.51–82).
     [Google Scholar]
  300. Ullman, Stephen
    (1959) Principles of semantics. 2nd edition; 1st edition 1951. Glasgow: Jackson. / Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  301. Vallduví, Enric , & Vikunen, Maria
    (1998) On rheme and Kontrast. In Culicover & McNally (Eds.), (pp.79–108).
     [Google Scholar]
  302. Van de Velde, Freek
    (2007) Interpersonal modification in the English noun phrase. Functions of Language, 14(2), 203–230. doi: 10.1075/fol.14.2.05van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.05van [Google Scholar]
  303. Van Linden, An
    (2012) Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110252941
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252941 [Google Scholar]
  304. Van Valin, Robert D
    (2013) Lexical representation, co-composition, and linking syntax and semantics. In James Pustejovsky (Ed.), Advances in generative lexicon theory (pp.67ff.). Dordrecht / New York: Springer Science + Business Media. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑5189‑7_4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  305. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    (2002) Prenominal adjectives in English: Structures and ordering. Folia Linguistica, 36, 219–259. doi: 10.1515/flin.2002.36.3‑4.219
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2002.36.3-4.219 [Google Scholar]
  306. Vendler, Zeno
    (1968) Adjectives and nominalizations. The Hague / Paris: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  307. Ward, Gregory , & Birner, Betty J
    (2011) Discourse effects of word order variation. In Maienborn et al. (Eds.), Ch. 73.Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, doi: 10.1515/9783110255072.1934
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1934 [Google Scholar]
  308. Warren, Beatrice
    (1978) Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  309. (1984) Classifying adjectives. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  310. Weinreich, Uriel
    (1966) Explorations in semantic theory. Reprinted in William Labov & Beatrice Weinreich (Eds.) (1980) On semantics (pp.99–207). Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  311. Wennerstrom, Ann
    (2001) The music of English speech: Prosody as discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  312. Werning, Markus ; Hinzen, Wolfram ; & Machery, Edouard
    (Eds.) (2012) Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  313. Wharton, Tim
    (2012) Pragmatics and prosody. In Allan & Jaszczolt (Eds.), (pp.The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics,567–584). doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.031
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.031 [Google Scholar]
  314. Wichmann, Anne
    (2000) Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings, middles, and ends. Harlow / New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  315. Wierzbicka, Anna
    (1981) Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 1(1), 43–80. doi: 10.1080/07268608108599266
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608108599266 [Google Scholar]
  316. (1990) ‘Prototypes save’: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields. In S.L. Tsohadzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorisation (pp.347–367). London / New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  317. (1992) The semantics of interjection. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 159–192. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90050‑L
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90050-L [Google Scholar]
  318. (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  319. Wray, Alison
    (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  320. Wunderlich, Dieter
    (2012) Lexical decomposition in grammar. In Werning et al. (Eds.), (pp.Oxford handbook of compositionality,307–327).
     [Google Scholar]
  321. Wymer, Adam Zachary
    (2008) Towards flexible types with constraints for manner and factive adverbs. In Louise McNally & Christopher Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (pp.249–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  322. Zaidel, Eran ; White, Hedy ; Sakurai, Eriko ; & Banks, William
    (1988) Representation, control and interaction: Separate roles for the right and left hemispheres?In Christine Chiarello (Ed.), Right hemisphere contributions to lexical semantics (pp.71–88). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑73674‑2_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73674-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  323. Zwaan, Rolf A. , & Madden, Carol J
    (2005) Embodied sentence comprehension. In Pecher & Zwaan (Eds.), (pp.Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking,224–245). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.010 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027266521
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027266521
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027266521
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027266521
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error