Diachronic frame analysis

References

1. ARTFL-Frantext corpus.
   ARTFL-Frantext corpus.ATILF – CNRS & Université de Lorraine. www.frantext.fr. December 2016 version under PhiloLogic3.
2. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B.
   (1998) The Berkeley FrameNet project. InCOLING-ACT ’98: Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Montréal (pp.86–90). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barcelona, A.
   (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective. [Topics in English linguistics]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Blank, A.
   (1997) Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110931600
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110931600 [Google Scholar]
5. Blank, A.
   (1999a) Co-presence and succession. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.169–191). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.10bla
   https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.10bla [Google Scholar]
6. Blank, A.
   (1999b) Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change. InA. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.61–89). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804195.61
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.61 [Google Scholar]
7. Blank, A.
   (2003) Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. InR. Eckardt, K. Von Heusinger, & C. Schwarze (Eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view (pp.37–66). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899979.37
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899979.37 [Google Scholar]
8. Bréal, M.
   (1900) Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Candito, M., & Djemaa, M.
   (2017) ASFALDA French FrameNet – Guide d’annotation. The ASFALDA Project. Retrieved fromasfalda.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/documentation/asfalda_guide_annotation.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cioranescu, A.
    (1960) Diccionario Etimológico Rumano. Tenerife, Spain: Biblioteca Filológica.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
12. de Gaulle, C.
    (1956) Mémoires de guerre, l’unité, 1942–1944. Paris: Plon.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Djemaa, M., Candito, M., Muller, P., & Vieu, L.
    (2016) Corpus annotation within the French FrameNet: A domain-by-domain methodology. InProceedings of LREC 2016 (pp.3794–3801). Portoroz, Slovenia, May 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Durkheim, E.
    (1915) L’Allemagne au-dessus de tout. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Eckart de Castilho, R., Mújdricza-Maydt, É., Yimam, S. M., Hartmann, S., Gurevych, I., Frank, A., & Biemann, C.
    (2016) A Web-based tool for the integrated annotation of semantic and syntactic structures. InProceedings of the LT4DH workshop at COLING 2016, Osaka, Japan.
16. Feltgen, Q., Fagard, B., & Nadal, J.-P.
    (2017) Frequency patterns of semantic change: Corpus-based evidence of a near-critical dynamics in language change. Royal Society Open Science, 4(11), 170830, 1–14. 10.1098/rsos.170830
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170830 [Google Scholar]
17. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Εd.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Fillmore, C. J., Wooters, C., & Baker, C. F.
    (2001) Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. InB. Tsou & O. Kwong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
20. FrameNets In Other Languages
    FrameNets In Other Languages (2019) FrameNet. RetrievedMarch 21, 2019fromframenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/framenets_in_other_languages
    [Google Scholar]
21. Fried, M.
    (2007) A frame semantic account of morphosemantic change : The case of Old Czech věřící. InD. Divjak & A. Kochanska (Eds.), Cognitive paths into the Slavic domain (pp.291–328). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198799.4.291
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198799.4.291 [Google Scholar]
22. Fried, M.
    (2013) Principles of constructional change. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Galland, A.
    (1717) Les mille et une nuit: Contes arabes traduits en français, Tome11. Paris: Florentin Delaulne.
    [Google Scholar]
24. García-Pardo, A.
    (2017) Location verbs and the instrument-subject alternation. InA. Kaplan, M. K. McCarvel, & E. J. Rubin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.232–240). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #3316.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Georgakopoulos, T.
    (2018) A frame-based approach to the source-goal asymmetry: Synchronic and diachronic evidence from Ancient Greek. Constructions and Frames, 10(1), 61–97. 10.1075/cf.00011.geo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00011.geo [Google Scholar]
26. Goldhahn, D., Eckart, T., & Quasthoff, U.
    (2012) Building large monolingual dictionaries at the Leipzig corpora collection: From 100 to 200 Languages. InProceedings of the 8th International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Győri, G.
    (2002) Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–166. 10.1515/cogl.2002.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.012 [Google Scholar]
28. Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D.
    (2016) Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.1489–1501). Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
    (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
30. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.458–477). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hong, J.
    (2016) Automatic metaphor detection using constructions and frames. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 295–322. 10.1075/cf.8.2.06hon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.06hon [Google Scholar]
32. Huyghe, R.
    (1955) Dialogue avec le visible. Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Koch, P.
    (1999a) Cognitive aspects of semantic change and polysemy: The semantic space HAVE/BE. InA. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.279–305). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804195.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.279 [Google Scholar]
34. Koch, P.
    (1999b) Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.139–167). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.09koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc [Google Scholar]
35. Koch, P.
    (2008) Cognitive onomasiology and lexical change: Around the eye. InM. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change (pp.107–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.106.07koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106.07koc [Google Scholar]
36. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. R. D.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
38. Levin, B.
    (2015) Semantics and pragmatics of argument alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 63–83. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125141
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141 [Google Scholar]
39. Lowe, J. B., Baker, C. F., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1997) A frame-semantic approach to semantic annotation. InM. Light (Ed.), Tagging text with lexical semantics: Why, what and how? (pp.18–24). Special Interest Group on the Lexicon.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Brockman, W., The Google Books Team, Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., and Aiden, E. L.
    (2010) Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science (Published online ahead of print: 12/16/2010).
    [Google Scholar]
41. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
    (1992) Outline of a model for semantic change. InG. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp.125–144). New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Nunberg, G.
    (1995) Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. 10.1093/jos/12.2.109
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
43. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333–357). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
44. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
45. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
46. Romeo, V.
    (2011) Behind the store: Stories of a first-generation Italian American childhood. Bloomington: iUniverse.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. FrameNet. Retrieved fromframenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/book/book.pdf%5Cnframenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.5/book.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
48. Saint-Simon, L. de R. duc de
    (1856) Mémoires Tome 4. Paris: Chéruel. (Original work published 1702).
    [Google Scholar]
49. Saldanya, M. P.
    (2015) Paradigms as triggers of semantic change: Demonstrative adverbs in Catalan and Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 14, 113–135. 10.5565/rev/catjl.165
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.165 [Google Scholar]
50. Sorel, C.
    (1646) La vraye histoire comique de Francion. Troyes: Jacques Balduc.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Stern, G.
    (1931) Meaning and change of meaning; with special reference to the English language. Oxford: Wettergren & Kerbers.
    [Google Scholar]
52. TLFi : Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé
    TLFi : Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé (2012) ATILF – CNRS & Université de Lorraine. Retrieved fromwww.atilf.fr/tlfi
53. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2001) Regularity in semantic change. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486500
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500 [Google Scholar]
54. Ullmann, S.
    (1957) The principles of semantics (2d ed., Vol.84.;84;). Oxford/Glasgow: Jackson.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Ullmann, S.
    (1964) Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D.
    (2002) Modern applied statistics with S.Fourth Edition. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21706‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 [Google Scholar]
57. Wickham, H.
    (2017) tidyverse: Easily install and load the ‘tidyverse’. R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
58. Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T.
    (2002) Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News, 2(3), 7–10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/
    [Google Scholar]