Aplikace umožňuje autorům spravovat bibliografické záznamy a přiřazovat je ke svým publik acím.
Přepnout na evidenci publikací, které mě citují.
A Conceptual Exploration of Polysemy : A Case Study of [V] – [UP] and [V] – [SHANG]
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