Bibliografie - správa publikací, které cituji
LU, Wei-lun. A Conceptual Exploration of Polysemy : A Case Study of [V] – [UP] and [V] – [SHANG]. Online. 1., elektronické vydání. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2022, 176 s. Spisy Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity; 515. ISBN 978-80-280-0039-4. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M280-0039-2022.
Podrobněji:
https://is.muni.cz/publication/1847901
Bibliografie |
---|
Atkins, S. (1993). Tools for computer-aided lexicography: The Hector Project. Acta Linguistica Hugarica 41, 5-72. |
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31-58). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.31 |
Benveniste, E. (1971). Subjectivity in language. In M. E. Meek (Ed.), Problems in general linguistics (pp. 223-230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. |
Boers, F. (1994). Motivating meaning extensions beyond physical space: A cognitive linguistic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimension. Ph.D. dissertation, Antwerp University. |
Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verbs in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. |
Breal, M. (1964). Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning (trans. Henry Cust). New York: Dover. [Original edition 1900] |
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press. |
Buhler, K. (1990). Theory of language: The representational function of language (trans. D. F. Goodwin). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Original edition 1934]. https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.25 |
Cappelle, B. (2005). Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leuven. |
Chang, S. (1994). V-qilai construction in Mandarin Chinese: A study for their semantics and syntax. M.A. thesis, National Tsinghua University. |
Chen, M, & J. Chang. (2010). The meaning extension of xiang and its polysemy network. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 8(2), 1-32. |
Chou, T. (1999). A study of polysemous words shang and xia in Chinese. M.A. Thesis, National Tsinghua University. |
Croft, W. (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 48-73). London: Routledge. |
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4), 335-70. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 |
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 |
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 |
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. |
Dehe, N. (2002). Particle verbs in English: Syntax, information structure, and intonation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.59 |
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4), 351-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351 |
Dosedlová, A. & W. Lu. (2019). The Near-synonymy of classifiers and construal operation: A corpus-based study of 棵 kē and 株 zhū in Mandarin Chinese. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17(1), 116-133. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00028.dos |
Dosedlová, A. & W. Lu. (2021). A co-varying collexeme analysis of Chinese classifiers 棵 kē and 株 zhū. In B. Basciano, F. Gatti & A. Morbiato (Eds.), Corpus-based research on Chinese language and linguistics, 223-238. Venice: Edizioni Ca' Foscari. |
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.12 |
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4), 491-534. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.016 |
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. |
Fillmore, C. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x |
Fillmore, C. J. & B. T. S. Atkins. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
Fillmore, C. J. & B. T. S. Atkins. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of crawl. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 91-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
Fillmore, C., P. Kay & M. K. O'Connor. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3), 501-38. https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 |
Firth, J. R. (1957). Modes of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4(3), 223-72. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 |
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press. |
Grady, J. (1997). Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley. |
Grice, P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 9, Pragmatics (pp. 113-128). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_006 |
Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57-99). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709 |
Hampe, B. (2005). When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus-minus parameter in image-schema theory. Cognitive Linguistics 16(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.81 |
Hanks, P. (1996). Contextual dependency and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1(1), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.1.1.06han |
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Herskovits, A. (1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Grammar (pp. 271-98). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.11her |
Hsu, Y. (2001). An analysis of the Chinese spatial term shang in three reference frames. M.A. Thesis, National Chung Cheng University. |
Huang, C. & S. Chang. (1996). Metaphor, metaphorical extension, and grammaticalization: A study of Mandarin Chinese -qilai. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 201-215). Stanford: CSLI. |
Ikegami, Y. (1987). 'Source' vs. 'goal': A case of linguistic dissymmetry. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Concepts of case (pp. 122-46). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen. |
Ikegami, Y. (2008). Subjective construal as a 'fashion of speaking' in Japanese. In M. A. G. Gonzalez, J. L. Mackenzie & E. M. G. Álvarez. (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 227-250). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.14ike |
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. |
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. |
Jakobson, R. (1957). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. |
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 |
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don't believe in word senses. Computers in the Humanities 31, 91-113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000583911091 |
Kim, H. (2005). Semantic networks of shang and xia in Mandarin Chinese: A cognitive linguistic analysis. M.A. Thesis, Providence University. |
Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0601_2 |
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 |
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press. |
Langacker, R. W. (1982). Space Grammar, analyzability, and the English passive. Language 58(1), 22-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/413531 |
Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109-50). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan |
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press. |
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1), 5-38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 |
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image and symbol. Stanford: Stanford University Press. |
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 |
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1-64). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. |
Langacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticalization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 17-40). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. |
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 |
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 |
Li, M. (1999). A semantic study of modern Chinese localizer shang. M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. |
Li, A. C. (1999). On Mandarin directional verbs qilai, xiaqu, and shanglai: A reflection of grammaticalization. M.A. Thesis, National Chengchi University. |
Liang, H. & K. Sullivan. (2019). Chinese L2 acquisition of sense relatedness for shàng "to go up". Chinese as a Second Language Research, 8(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2019-0001 |
Lindner, S. (1982). What goes up doesn't necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. In Papers from the 18th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 305-23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
Lindner, S. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with out and up. Bloomington: University of Indiana Linguistics Club. |
Lindstromberg, S. (1997). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.88 |
Lloyd, S. E., Sinha C. G. & N. H. Freeman. (1981). Spatial reference systems, and the canonicality effect in infant search. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(81)90088-6 |
Lu, L. W. & L. I. Su. (2012). Antonymous polysemy: The case of -shang in Mandarin. In A. Bednarek (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives in cross-cultural communication (pp. 36-50). München: Lincom Europa Academic Publishers. |
Lu, W. (2015a). Image-schemas, domains, co-text and the semantics of resultatives: A cognitive linguistic approach to -shang. Chinese Language and Discourse 6(2), 162-182. https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.6.2.03lu |
Lu, W. (2015b). A Cognitive Linguistic approach to teaching spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analyses to material design. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory (pp. 51-72). Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514442-005 |
Lu, W. (2016). Polysemy and the semantic-pragmatic interface: The case of up in a context-based model. Intercultural Pragmatics 13(4), 563-589. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0024 |
Lu, W. (2017a). Metaphor, conceptual archetypes and subjectification: The case of COMPLETION IS UP and the polysemy of shàng in Chinese. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 231-249). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.09lu |
Lu, W. (2017b). Perspectivization and contextualization in semantic analysis: A parsimonious polysemy approach to in. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 134, 247-264. https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.17.017.7091 |
Lu, W. (2020). Viewpoint and subjective construal across languages: English inversion, associated strategies and their Chinese renditions in multiple parallel texts. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7(2), 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00060.lu |
Lu, W., N. Kudrnáčová and L.A. Janda (eds.). (2021). Corpus approaches to language, thought and communication [Benjamins Current Topics 119]. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.119 |
Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Kleins (Eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101-24). Chichester; New York: John Willey. |
Mandler, J. (1988). How to build a baby: On the development of an accessible representational system. Cognitive Development 3(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(88)90015-9 |
Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a baby II: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review 99(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.587 |
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon: A theory of computational lexical semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. |
Radden, G. (2000). How metonymic are metaphors. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93-108). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.93 |
Rhee, S. (2000). Frame of focus in grammaticalization. Discourse and Cognition 7, 79-104. |
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197235 |
Ruhl, C. (1989). On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. |
Ruhl, C. (2002). Data, comprehensiveness, monosemy. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning and message (pp. 171-89). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.48.11ruh |
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203594070 |
Soon, S. & S. Chung. (2016). Locative particle 'shang' in Chinese. In F. A. Almeida, I. O. Barrera, E. Q. Toledo and M. S. Cuervo (Eds.), Input a word, analyse the world: Selected approaches to corpus linguistics (pp.171-182). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. |
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6 |
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. |
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mohndorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 413-444). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gryuter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.413 |
Stefanowitch, A. & A. Rohde. (2004). The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.) Motivation in grammar (pp. 249-68). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gryuter. |
Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 |
Su, C. (1997). The semantic versatility of Mandarin morphemes shang and xia: A cognitive linguistic analysis. M.A. Thesis, Providence University. |
Su, L. I. (1998). Metaphor, metonymy, and lexical meaning. National Taiwan University Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 49-73. |
Talmy, L. (1985). Force Dynamics as a generalization over causative. In Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics (pp. 67-85). Washington: Georgetown University Press. |
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and 'ception'. In P. Bloom & M. Peterson (Eds.) Language and space (pp. 211-76). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. |
Taylor, J. (2003a). Polysemy's paradoxes. Language Sciences 25(6), 637-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7 |
Taylor, J. (2003b). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 323-48). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gryuter. |
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1), 31-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 |
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein and S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation in language (pp. 31-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 |
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 |
Tyler, A., & V. Evans. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4), 724-65. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250 |
Tyler, A., & V. Evans. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 |
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. |
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2), 157-184. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157 |
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371 |
Verhagen, A. (2012). Construal and stylistics - within a language, across contexts, across languages. In Stylistics across disciplines (Conference CD-ROM Proceedings). Leiden. |
Wang, B. P.-Y., & L. I. Su (2015). On the principled polysemy of -kai in Chinese resultative verbs. Chinese Language and Discourse 6(1), 2-27. https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.6.1.01wan |
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15, 273-291. |
Xiao, R. & T. McEnery. (2004). Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.73 |