Synergic Concepts in the Bilingual Mind



English Word Conceptual System Conceptual Domain World Knowledge Conceptual Content 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barsalou, L. W. 1993. Challenging assumption about concepts [commentary]. Cognitive Development, 8: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bibok, K., and Enikő, N. T. 2001. How the lexicon and context interact in the meaning construction of utterances. In Enikő, N. T., and Károly, B. (eds.), Pragmatics and the flexibility of word meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 289–321.Google Scholar
  3. Bierwisch, M. 1996. How much space gets into language? In Bloom, P., Mary, A. P., Lynn N., and Merrill F. G. (eds.), Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 31–77.Google Scholar
  4. Bierwisch, M. 1997. Lexical information from a minimalist point of view. In Chris W., Hans-Martin G., and Manfred B. (eds.), The role of economy principles in linguistic theory. (Studia Grammatica 40.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 227–266.Google Scholar
  5. Birman, D., and Trickett, E. J. 2001. The process of acculturation in first generation Immigrants: A study of Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents and parents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4): 456–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blommaert, J. 1998. Different approaches to intercultural communication: A critical survey.Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universität Bremen, Institut für Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik (IPMI), 27–28, February 1998.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, L. 1978. Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In Rosch, E., and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and categorization: 65–79. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cruse, D. A. 1990. Prototype theory and lexical semantics. In Savas, L. T. (ed.), Meaning and proptotypes: studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge. 382–402.Google Scholar
  9. Cruse, D. A. 1992. Antonymy revisited: some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Adrienne, L., and Eva, F. K. (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: new essays in semantic and lexical organisation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. 289–306.Google Scholar
  10. Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fauconnier, G., and Mark, T. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fauconnier, G., and Mark, T. 2002. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Gagne, R. M. 1977. The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, R. and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Gee, J. P. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Giora, R. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: the graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7: 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giora, R. 2003. On our mind: salience, context and figurative language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  17. Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gumperz, J., and Jenny, C. 2005. Bilingual communicative space. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herweg, M. 1992. “Aspectual requirements of temporal connectives: evidence for a two-level approach to semantics.” James, P., and Sabine, B. (eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation: proceedings of the 1st SIGLEX Workshop, Berkeley, California, USA, June 17, 1991. Berlin: Springer. 185–200.Google Scholar
  20. Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kecskes, I. 2000. A Cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6): 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kecskes, I., and Tunde, P. 2000. Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Kecskes, I. 2001. The “graded salience hypothesis” in second language acquisition. In Niemeier, S., and Puetz, M. (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 249–271.Google Scholar
  25. Kecskes, I. 2003. Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Kecskes, I., and Tunde, P. 2003. “How to demonstrate the conceptual effect of the L2 on L1?” In Cook, V. (ed.), The effect of L2 on L1. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 247–267.Google Scholar
  27. Kecskes, I. 2004. Lexical merging, conceptual blending and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kecskes, I., and Isabel, M. C. 2005: Lexical choice as a reflection of conceptual fluency. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kecskes, I. 2006. On my mind: thoughts about salience, context, and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research, 22(2): 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lamberts, K., and David, S. 1997. Knowledge, concepts and categories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Malt, B. C. 1994. Water is Not H20. Cognitive psychology, 27: 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell, R., and Florence, M. 1998. Second language learning theories. London, New York: Arnold.Google Scholar
  33. Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and language development: language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ochs, E., and Bambi, S. 1984. Language acquisition and socialization: three developmental stories and their implications. In Shweder, R., and LeVine, R. (eds.), Culture theory: essays on mind, self and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 276–320.Google Scholar
  35. Paradis, M. 1998. The other side of language. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Persky, I., and Birman, D. 2005. “Ethnic” identity in acculturation research: a study of multiple identities of Jewish refugees from the Former Soviet Union. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(5): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Platt, E., and Troudi, S. 1997. Mary and her teachers: a Grebo-speaking child’ place in the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 181: 28–49.Google Scholar
  38. Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, E.E., and Sloman, S.A. 1994. Similarity-vs. rule-based categorization. Memory and Cognition 22, 377–386.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, L. B., and Larissa K. S. 1997. Perceiving and remembering: category stability, variability and development. In Koen, L., and David, S. (eds.), Knowledge, concepts, and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 161–196.Google Scholar
  41. Sperber, D., and Deirdre W. 1995. Reprint. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Original edition, Oxford: Blackwell, (1986).Google Scholar
  42. Violi, P. 2000. Prototypicality, typicality and context. In Albertazzi, L. (ed.), Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 103–123.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Willett, J. 1995. Becoming first graders in an L2: an ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3): 473–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New YorkAlbany

Personalised recommendations