‘I’m dying on you’

References

1. Afek, E. , & Cahanman, I
   (1982)  Al in its function in Israeli Hebrew. The David Gross Book: A collection of essays, studies, and literature dedicated to Dr. David Gross for his 70th birthday (pp.231–245). Tel Aviv: Hamatmid. [Hebrew]
   [Google Scholar]
2. Afek, E. , & Cahanman, I
   (1985) New trends in the function of al in Israeli Hebrew. Leshoneinu la-am, 36(2), 41–61; (3–4), 84–98; (8–10), 205–215. [Hebrew]
   [Google Scholar]
3. Ameka, F.K
   (2008) He died old dying to be dead right: Transitivity and semantic shifts of ‘die’ in Ewe in crosslinguistic perspective. In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure (pp. 231–253). New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barcelona, A
   (2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–278). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.207
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.207 [Google Scholar]
5. Baumeister, R.F. , Bratslavlavsky, E. , Finkenauer, C. , & Vohs, K.D
   (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology,5(4), 323–370. doi: 10.1037/1089‑2680.5.4.323
   https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 [Google Scholar]
6. Blenki, I
   (2003) “Locative” al and “directional” al. Master’s thesis. Tel Aviv
   [Google Scholar]
7. Blenki, I
   (2006) Comparative grammar: The prepositions in Hebrew and in Russian. Hed ha-ulpan ha-xadash, 89, 114–128. [Hebrew]
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bolinger, D
   (1972) Degree words. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110877786
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
9. Borochovsky Bar-Aba, E. , & Sovran, T
   (2003) Hebrew Construction Grammar. In R. Ben-Shaxar & G. Turi (Eds.), Hebrew – A living language III (pp.31–50). Tel Aviv: The Porter institute and Hakibuts ha-meuxad. [Hebrew]
   [Google Scholar]
10. Boroditsky, L
    (2001) Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 [Google Scholar]
11. Cacchiani, S
    (2005) Local vehicles for intensification and involvement: the case of English intensifiers. In P. Cap (Ed.), Pragmatics today (pp. 401–419). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Croft, W
    (2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–206). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.161 [Google Scholar]
13. de Swart, P
    (2007) Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. PhD dissertation. Radboud University.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Evans, V. , & Green, M
    (2006) Cognitive grammar: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fillmore, C.J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M.C
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
16. Foolen, A
    (2012) The relevance of emotion language for language and linguistics. In A. Foolen , U.M. Lüdtke , T.P. Racine , & Z. Jordan (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness, and language (pp. 349–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ceb.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ceb.6 [Google Scholar]
17. Gafni, I
    (2009) Semantic processes of power and violence terms in Hebrew. A seminarian paper. Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew]
18. Geeraerts, D
    (2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.435
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.435 [Google Scholar]
19. Gibbs, R.W. Jr
    (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
20. Givón, T
    (2001) Syntax (volume I). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700015322
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700015322 [Google Scholar]
21. Goldberg, A
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goldberg, A.E
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Goossens, L
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–340. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
24. Halevi, R
    (2007) Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language comparison with English, German, and Spanish. In N. Delbecque & B. Cornillie (Eds.), On interpreting construction schema: From action and motion to transitivity and causality (pp. 61–101). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hampe, B. , & Schönefeld, D
    (2006) Syntactic leaps or lexical variation?: More on “creative syntax”. In S.T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 127–157). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hoeksema, J. , & Napoli, D.J
    (2008) Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Linguistics, 44, 347–378.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hopper, P.J. , & Thompson, S.A
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
28. Jing-Schmidt, Z
    (2007) Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–423. doi: 10.1515/COG.2007.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.023 [Google Scholar]
29. Johnson, M
    (1987) The body in the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
31. Kövecses, Z
    (2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kövecses, Z
    (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
33. Kurzon, D
    (2002) ‘Preposition’ as functor: The case of long in Bislama. In S. Feigenbaum & D. Kurzon (Eds.), Prepositions in their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic context (pp. 1231–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.50.12kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.50.12kur [Google Scholar]
34. Labov, W
    (1984) Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp.43–70). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic books.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisite.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Langacker, R.W
    (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Lorentz, G
    (2002) Really worthwhile or not really significant?: A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 143–162). Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.11lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.11lor [Google Scholar]
40. Majid, A
    (2014) Current emotion research in the language sciences. Emotion Review, 4(4), 432–443. doi: 10.1177/1754073912445827
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912445827 [Google Scholar]
41. Malchukov, A.L
    (2005) Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop, H . (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp. 73–118). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978‑008044651‑6/50006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044651-6/50006-9 [Google Scholar]
42. McNabb, Y
    (2012) The syntax and semantics of degree modification. PhD dissertation. The University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Napoli, D.J. , & Hoeksema, J
    (2009) The grammatical versatility of taboo terms. Studies in language, 33(3), 612–643. doi: 10.1075/sl.33.3.04nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.3.04nap [Google Scholar]
44. Radden, G
    (1998) The conceptualisation of emotional causality by means of prepositional phrases. In A. Athanasiadou & E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisation and expression (pp. 273–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110806007.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806007.273 [Google Scholar]
45. Radden, G
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
46. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
47. Rosenblum, A. , & Triger, Z
    (2007) Speechless: How contemporary Israeli culture isreflected in language. Or Yehuda: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir. [Hebrew]
    [Google Scholar]
48. Rozin, P. , & Royzman, E.B
    (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review,5(4), 296–320. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2 [Google Scholar]
49. Shatil, N
    (2001) The preposition al as a meaning extender in the spoken language. The Hebrew and Her Sisters: A magazine for the study of the Hebrew language, its relation to the Semitic languages and to the languages of the Jews, 1, 141–148. [Hebrew]
    [Google Scholar]
50. Smith, W
    (1996) Spoken narrative and preferred clause structure: Evidence from Modern Hebrew discourse. Studies in Language, 20(1), 163–189. doi: 10.1075/sl.20.1.07sut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20.1.07sut [Google Scholar]
51. Taylor, J.R
    (1989) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (second edition). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Taylor, S.E
    (1991) Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.110.1.67
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67 [Google Scholar]
53. Tsunoda, T
    (1981) Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 19, 389–438.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Tsunoda, T
    (1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 385–396. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700010318
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010318 [Google Scholar]
55. Amichai, Y
    (1977) ‘Poems 1948–1962’. Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing House. [Hebrew]
    [Google Scholar]
56. Tanach (the Jewish bible). [Biblical Hebrew]
    [Google Scholar]