Advertisement

Axiomathes

, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 7–33 | Cite as

Dynamicity In Grammar

  • Ronald W. Langacker
Article

Keywords

Cognitive Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Achard, M.: 1998. Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cognitive Linguistics Research 11.Google Scholar
  2. Chafe, W.: 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Deane, P.: 1987. ‘English Possessives, Topicality, and the Silverstein Hierarchy’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 65–76.Google Scholar
  4. Fauconnier, G.: 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
  5. Fauconnier, G.: 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fauconnier, G. and E. Sweetser (eds.): 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner: 1998. ‘Conceptual Integration Networks’, Cognitive Science 22, 133–187.Google Scholar
  8. Fodor, J. A.: 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
  9. Forrest, L. B.: 1996. ‘Discourse Goals and Attentional Processes in Sentence Production: The Dynamic Construal of Events’, in Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 149–161.Google Scholar
  10. Gernsbacher, M. A. and D. Hargreaves: 1992. ‘The Privilege of Primacy: Experimental Data and Cognitive Explanations’, in Doris L. Payne (ed.), Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 22, 83–116.Google Scholar
  11. Givón, T.: 1991. ‘Isomorphism in the Grammatical Code: Cognitive and Biological Considerations’, Studies in Language 15, 85–114.Google Scholar
  12. Haiman, J.: 1983. ‘Iconic and Economic Motivation’, Language 59, 781–819.Google Scholar
  13. Haiman, J.: 1985a. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 44.Google Scholar
  14. Haiman, J. (ed.): 1985b. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 6.Google Scholar
  15. Israel, M.: 1996. ‘Polarity Sensitivity as Lexical Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 619–666.Google Scholar
  16. Israel, M.: 1998. The Rhetoric of Grammar: Scalar Reasoning and Polarity Sensitivity. San Diego: University of California doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  17. Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie: 1977. ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
  18. Kumashiro, T.: 2000. The Conceptual Basis of Grammar: A Cognitive Approach to Japanese Clausal Structure. San Diego: University of California doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G.: 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson: 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson: 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, G. and M. Turner: 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Langacker, R. W.: 1982, ‘Space Grammar, Analysability, and the English Passive’, Language 58, 22–80.Google Scholar
  24. Langacker, R. W.: 1986. ‘Abstract Motion’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, 455–471.Google Scholar
  25. Langacker, R. W.: 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Langacker, R. W.: 1987b. ‘Nouns and Verbs’, Language 63, 53–94.Google Scholar
  27. Langacker, R. W.: 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cognitive Linguistics Research 1.Google Scholar
  28. Langacker, R. W.: 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Langacker, R. W.: 1993. ‘Reference-Point Constructions’, Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1–38.Google Scholar
  30. Langacker, R.W.: 1995a. ‘Possession and Possessive Constructions’, in John R. Taylor andRobert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 82, 51–79.Google Scholar
  31. Langacker, R. W.: 1995b. ‘Raising and Transparency’, Language 71, 1–62.Google Scholar
  32. Langacker, R. W.: 1998a. ‘Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar’, in Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Mahwah, NJ and London: Erlbaum, pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
  33. Langacker, R. W.: 1998b. ‘Topic, Subject, and Possessor’, Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 19, 1–28.Google Scholar
  34. Langacker, R.W.: 1999a. ‘Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise’, in Theo Janssen andGisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cognitive Linguistics Research 15, 13–59.Google Scholar
  35. Langacker, R.W.: 1999b. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cognitive Linguistics Research 14.Google Scholar
  36. Langacker, R. W.: 1999c. ‘Virtual Reality’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2), 77–103.Google Scholar
  37. MacWhinney, B.: 1977. ‘Starting Points’, Language 53, 152–168.Google Scholar
  38. Maldonado, R.: 1992. Middle Voice: The Case of Spanish 'se'. San Diego: University of California doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  39. Manney, L. J.: 2000. Middle Voice in Modern Greek: Meaning and Function of an Inflectional Category. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 48.Google Scholar
  40. Matsumoto, Y.: 1996a. ‘Subjective-Change Expressions in Japanese and Their Cognitive and Linguistic Bases’, in Fauconnier and Sweetser, pp. 124–156.Google Scholar
  41. Matsumoto, Y.: 1996b. ‘Subjective Motion and English and Japanese Verbs’, Cognitive Linguistics 7, 183–226.Google Scholar
  42. Reinhart, T.: 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Talmy, L.: 1996. ‘Fictive Motion in Language and “Ception”'. in Paul Bloom et al. (eds.), Language and Space, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford, pp. 211–276.Google Scholar
  44. Talmy, L.: 2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
  45. Talmy, L.: 2000b. Toward a Cognitive Setnantics, vol.2, Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, J. R.: 1996. Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon.Google Scholar
  47. Tomlin, R. S.: 1995. ‘Focal Attention, Voice, and Word Order’, in Pamela Downing andMichael Noonan (eds.), Word Order in Discourse, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 30, 517–554.Google Scholar
  48. Tomlin, R. S.: 1997. ‘Mapping Conceptual Representations into Linguistic Representations: The Role of Attention in Grammar’, in Jan Nuyts andEric Pederson (eds.), Language and Conceptualization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Language, Culture and Cognition 1, 162–189.Google Scholar
  49. Turner, M.: 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Turner, M. and G. Fauconnier: 1995. ‘Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression’, Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10, 183–204.Google Scholar
  51. van Hoek, K.: 1995. ‘Conceptual Reference Points: A Cognitive Grammar Account of Pronominal Anaphora Constraints’, Language 71, 310–340.Google Scholar
  52. van Hoek, K.: 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Verfaillie, K. and A. Daems: 1996. ‘The Priority of the Agent in Visual Event Perception: On the Cognitive Basis of Grammatical Agent-Patient Asymmetries’, Cognitive Linguistics 7, 131–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald W. Langacker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations