The cognitive potential of antithesis

References

1. Akademichnyj tlumachnyj slovnyk
   Akademichnyj tlumachnyj slovnyk 1970–1980 [Academic Ukrainian Dictionary]. sum.in.ua (Last accessed on13 August 2017).
2. Baars, Bernard J.
   1988 A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barrett, Louise
   2011 Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Belekhova, Larysa
   2002 Obraznyj prostir amerykans’koї poeziї: lingvokognityvnyj aspekt [Image space of American poetry: Linguocognitive perspective]. DSc Dissertation. Kyiv National Linguistics University.
5. Belekhova, Larysa
   2006 Kontseptualnyj oksymoron: kreatyvnyj mekhanizm formuvannia novyzny slovesnykh obraziv (na materiali amerykanskoї poeziї) [Conceptual oxymoron: creative mechanism of making verbal images novel (based on American poetry)]. Naukovyj visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu: Seriia “Lingvistyka” [Kherson State University Herald: Linguistics Series]. linguistics.kspu.edu/webfm_send/969 (Last accessed on22 July 2017).
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boyce, Charles
   1990 Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Poems, His Life and Times, and More. New York: Laurel / Dell Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Brône, Geert & Jeroen Vandaele
   (eds) 2009 Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213379
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213379 [Google Scholar]
8. Cornelius, Judson K.
   2005 [1998] Literary Humour. Bandra: Better Yourself Books.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dancygier, Barbara
   2012 Negation, stance verbs, and intersubjectivity. InViewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, 69–93.10.1017/CBO9781139084727.006
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.006 [Google Scholar]
10. Elbow, Peter
    1993 The uses of binary thinking. Journal of Advanced Composition (14): 22–51. scholarworks.umass.edu/eng_faculty_pubs/14 (Last accessed on8 January 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
11. Estes, Zachary & Thomas B. Ward
    2002 The emergence of novel attributes in concept modification. Creativity Research Journal14 (2): 149–156.10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_2 [Google Scholar]
12. Evans, Vyv
    2007 A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
14. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1982 Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.). Seoul: Hanshin, 111–137.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Fischer, Olga C. M.
    1997 Iconicity in language and literature: Language innovation and language change. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen98: 63–87. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/3232869/3428_139202.pdf (Last accessed on13 August 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
17. Franke, Michael
    2008 Pseudo-imperatives and other cases of conditional conjunction and conjunctive disjunction. In ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’. InSentence and Text: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 255–280.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
    1993 Process and products in making sense of tropes. InMetaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252–276.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.014 [Google Scholar]
19. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
    1994 The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Givón, Talmy
    2009 [1989] Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. New York and London: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hajičová, Eva
    2017 Theme. InThe Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Linguistics. linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-216 (Last accessed on13 August 2017).10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.216
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.216 [Google Scholar]
23. Harrison, Chloe
    2017 Cognitive Grammar in Contemporary Fiction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.26 [Google Scholar]
24. Harrison, Chloe , Louise Nuttall , Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan
    (eds) 2014 Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.17 [Google Scholar]
25. Horpynych, Volodymyr
    2004 Morfolohiia ukraїnskoї movy [Ukrainian Language Morphology]. Kyiv: Akademiia.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Janda, Laura
    2007 Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Studies in Language31 (3): 607–648.10.1075/sl.31.3.04jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.04jan [Google Scholar]
27. Jarvie, Gordon
    2007 Bloomsbury Grammar Guide: Grammar Made Easy. London: A&C Black.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Kaluża, Irena
    1984 Antithesis – a linguistic approach. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia17: 101–114.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Kolomiiets, Lada V.
    2006 Dva Leonidy Hrebinky: Do pytannia pro avtentychnyj pereklad i redaktorsku pravku (na materiali perekladu ‘Hamleta’ V. Shekspira) [Two Grebinkas: On authentic translation and editor’s changes (based on W. Shakespeare’s Hamlet)]. Inozemna lologija [Foreign Philology] 40: 31–5.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Lakoff, George
    2003 Metaphor and semantics. InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguisitcs: AAVE-Esperanto. Vol.1. New York: Oxford University Press, 53–54.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    2003 [1980] Metaphors We Live By. London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
33. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
34. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara
    2007 Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds). New York: Oxford University Press, 139–169.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lu, Wei-lun & Arie Verhagen
    2016 Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, Barbara Dancygier , Wei-Lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 169–190.10.1515/9783110365467‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-008 [Google Scholar]
36. Lu, Wei-lun , Susanne Kemmer , Svitlana Shurma & Jiří Rambousek
    . Under review. Use of translation as a research method in contrastive cognitive poetics: Word formation in Jabberwocky and its Ukrainian translations. Submitted to: Journal of Literary Semantics.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Lu, Wei-lun , Arie Verhagen & I-wen Su
    2018 A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach for viewpoint research across languages: The case of demonstratives in English and Chinese. InExpressive Minds and Artistic Creations: Studies in Cognitive Poetics, Szilvia Csábi (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 131–158.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Newell, Alex
    1965 The dramatic context and meaning of Hamlet’s “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy. PMLA80 (1): 38–50.10.2307/461124
    https://doi.org/10.2307/461124 [Google Scholar]
39. Plett, Heinrich F.
    2010 International Studies in the History of Rhetoric. Vol. 2. Literary Rhetoric: Concepts – Structures – Analyses. Leiden and Boston: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004171138.i‑320
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171138.i-320 [Google Scholar]
40. Ponomariv, Oleksander
    2014 Blog profesora Ponomareva: pro riznytsiu mizh “chy” ta “abo” [Professor Ponomariv’s blog: on the difference between “chy” and “abo”]. www.bbc.com/ukrainian/blogs/2014/08/140820_ponomariv_blog27_ko (Last accessed on13 August 2017).
41. Preminger, Alex & Terry V. F. Brogan
    (eds) 1993 The New Princeton Encyclopaedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Ramshaw, Gail
    1996 Liturgical Language: Keeping it Metaphoric, Making it Inclusive. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Ross, George
    . s.d. [1867] Studies: Biographical and Literary. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2000 English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
45. Semino, Elena , Zsofia Demjén & Jane E. Demmen
    2016 An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics1–22. doi: 10.1093/applin/am028
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/am028 [Google Scholar]
46. Shakespeare, William
    1986 Hamlet, prynts datskyj. Tr. by L. Hrebinka . In V. Shekspir . Tvory v shesty tomah [Works in Six Volumes]. Vol.5. Kyiv: Dnipro, 5–118.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Shakespeare, William
    2004 Hamlet, prynts danskyj. Tr. by G. Kochur . In U. Shekspir . Tragediї [Tragedies]. Kharkiv: Folio, 165–310.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Shakespeare, William
    2008 Hamlet, prynts danskyj. Tr. by Yu. Andrukhovych . Kyiv: A-BA-BA-GA-LA-MA-GA.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Shakespeare, William
    . (upd. 2008) Act III. Scene 1. Hamlet [online]. www.shakespeareswords.com/Plays.aspx?Ac=3&SC=1&IdPlay=2#117126 (Last accessed on31 July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
50. Shakespeare, William
    . (upd. 2018) Act III. Scene 1. Hamlet [online]. https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=hamlet&Act=3&Scene=1&Scope=scene (Last accessed on21 August 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
51. Shen, Yeshayahu
    1997 Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics8 (1): 33–71.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33 [Google Scholar]
52. Shen, Yeshayahu
    2002 Cognitive constraints on verbal creativity: The use of figurative language in poetic discourse. InCognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, Elena Semino & Jonathan Culpeper (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–230.10.1075/lal.1.11she
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.1.11she [Google Scholar]
53. Shulzhuk, Kalenyk
    2004 Syntaksys ukraїnskoї movy [Syntax of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Akademiia.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Shurma, Svitlana & Wei-Lun Lu
    2016 A cognitive poetic analysis of LIFE and DEATH in English and Ukrainian: A Multiple-Parallel-Text approach to Hamlet’s soliloquy. Theatralia19 (2): 9–28.10.5817/TY2016‑2‑1
    https://doi.org/10.5817/TY2016-2-1 [Google Scholar]
55. Simpson, Paul
    2004 Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Skidan, Olga
    2007 Kontrastyvni stylistychni zasoby vtilennia konceptu TVORCHA OSOBYSTIST u hudozhnikh tekstakh U.S. Moema [Contrastive stylistic means that embody the concept CREATIVE PERSONALITY in W.S. Maugham’s novels]. Abstract of PhD Dissertation. Karazin National University of Kharkiv.
57. Skidan, Olga
    2008 Hrotesk iak zasib vtilennia konceptu TVORCHA OSOBYSTIST u tvorakh U.S. Moema [Grotesque as a means of CREATIVE PERSONALITY concept embodiment in W.S. Maugham’s works]. Naukovyj Visnyk Khersonskogo derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriia: “Linhvistyka” [Kherson State University Herald. Linguistics series], 262–266. linguistics.kspu.edu/webfm_send/1268 (Last accessed on12 August 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
58. Skidan, Olga
    2010 Kohnityvnyj pidkhid do stylistychnoho analizu anglomovnogo hudozhnioho tekstu [Cognitive approach to stylistic analysis of English literary texts]. Sevastopol: Izdatelstvo SevNTU.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Stockwell, Peter
    2002 Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Rothenberg, Albert
    1973 Word association and creativity. Psychological Reports33: 3–1210.2466/pr0.1973.33.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1973.33.1.3 [Google Scholar]
61. Talanchuk, O.
    2002 100 najvidomishykh obraziv ukraїnskoї mifolohiї [100 Most Famous Images of Ukrainian Mythology]. Kyiv: Orfej.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Tomasello, Michael
    2005 [2003] Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Tsur, Reuven
    1992 Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics. Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Turner, Mark
    2014 Blending in language and communication. InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 211–232. Online version available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2487552 (Last accessed on20 July 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
65. Williamson, Claude C. H.
    (ed.) 2005 [1950] Readings on the Character of Hamlet. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]