The semantics of the English complex preposition next to

References

1. Bosworth, J.; & Toller, T. N.
   Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. RetreivedJune 23, 2017, frombosworth.ff.cuni.cz/about
   [Google Scholar]
2. Brenda, M.
   (2014) The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Brenda, M.
   (2015) The semantics of at. InE. Komorowska (Ed.), Annales Neophilologiarum9, pp.25–55. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Brenda, M.
   (2017) A cognitive perspective on the semantics near. Review of Cognitive Linguistics15(1), 121–153. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre
   https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre [Google Scholar]
5. Brenda, M.
   (2018) The semantics of by. [Unpublished manuscript, University of Szczzecin, Poland].
6. British National Corpus. RetreivedJune 2014fromwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
   [Google Scholar]
7. Brugman, C.
   (1988) The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Coventry, K. R.; & Garrod, S. C.
   (2004) Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203641521
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203641521 [Google Scholar]
9. Cuyckens, H.
   (1993) The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. InC. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.27
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.27 [Google Scholar]
10. Cuypere, L. de
    (2013) Debiasing semantic analysis: the case of the English preposition to. Language Sciences37, 122–135. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
11. Dirven, R.
    (1993) Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. InC. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.73 [Google Scholar]
12. Evans, V.
    (2010) From the spatial to the non-spatial: the ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at. InV. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space. The state of the art and new directions. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Evans, V.
    (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
14. Fitzpatrick, R.
    (Ed.) (2008) Euclid’s elements of geometry. Richard Fitzpatrick.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Herskovits, A.
    ([1986] 2009) Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ho-Abdullah, I.
    (2010) Variety and variability. A corpus-based cognitive lexical-semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. Kokorniak, I.
    (2007) English at: an integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
20. Lakoff, G.
    (2006) Conceptual metaphor: The contemporary theory of metaphor. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A.
    (Eds.) (1991) Master metaphor list (2nd ed.). RetrievedJuly 20th, 2016fromaraw.mede.uic.edu/alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
22. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991a) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991b) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Langacker, R. W.
    (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Langacker, R. 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]
27. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
28. Levinson, S. C.
    (2003) Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
29. Lewis, D.
    (2007) Review of A. Tyler & V. Evans, The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: C.U.P., 2003. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 110–121.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D.
    (1996) A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Space and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Lyons, J.
    (1995) Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213 [Google Scholar]
32. Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A. & Onions, C. T.
    (Eds.) (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
33. McEnery, T.; & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Miller, G.; & Johnson-Laird, P. N.
    (1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
35. Navarro-Ferrando, I.
    (1999) The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies1, 145–164. 10.18172/jes.47
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.47 [Google Scholar]
36. Navarro-Ferrando, I.
    (2000) A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica26, 189–220. 10.18172/cif.2227
    https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2227 [Google Scholar]
37. Navarro-Ferrando, I.
    (2002) Towards the description of the meaning of at. InH. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110924787.211
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.211 [Google Scholar]
38. Przybylska, R.
    (2002) Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. Kraków: Universitas.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Rudkiewicz, K.
    (2016) Cognitive explorations into the category schema of for. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Talmy, L.
    (2003) The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. InK. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language, 169–195. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Tutton, M.
    (2016) Locative expressions in English and French: A multimodal approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110354867
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110354867 [Google Scholar]
43. Tyler, A.; & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
44. Tyler, A.; & Evans, V.
    (2004) Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. InH. Cuyckens, W. De Mulder, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of Movement (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18), pp.247–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Wittgenstein, L.
    ([1953] 1986) Philosophical investigations. (Translated byG. E. M. Anscombe.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Zwarts, J.; & Gärdenfors, P.
    (2016) Locative and Directional Prepositions in Conceptual Spaces: The Role of Polar Convexity. RetrievedDecember 3, 2016fromlink.springer.com/search?query=zwarts+joost