Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek

Cognitive Linguistics

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 169-206

  Nikiforidou, Kiki ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Blending; Gapless relatives; Greek; Recoverability; Relative clauses

Indexed keywords

EID: 14844302191     PISSN: 09365907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.169     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Alexiadou, Artemis 1998 On the structure of Greek relative clauses. [Studies for the Greek Language] 18, 15-29.
2. Christidis, Anastasios 1986 (The morpheme pu as an anaphoric marker) (Studies for the Greek Language) 7, 135-48.
3. Comrie, Bernard 1981 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4. Coulson, Seana and Gilles Fauconnier 1999 Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjectives. In Fox, Barbara, Dan Jurafsky, and Laura Michaelis (eds.), Cognition and Function in Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 143-158.
5. Coulson, Seana and Todd Oakley 2000 Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3/4), 175-196.
6. Fauconnier, Gilles 1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Fauconnier, Gilles 1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Fauconnier, Gilles and Eve Sweetser (eds.) 1996 Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner 1996 Blending as a central process of grammar. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 113-130. 2002 The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
10. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner 1996 Blending as a central process of grammar. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 113-130. 2002 The Way we Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
11. Fillmore, Charles 1982 Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin; 111-137. 1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 223-224. 1986 Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Nikiforidou, Kiki, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95-107.
12. Fillmore, Charles 1982 Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin; 111-137. 1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 223-224. 1986 Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Nikiforidou, Kiki, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95-107.
13. Fillmore, Charles 1982 Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin; 111-137. 1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6, 223-224. 1986 Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Nikiforidou, Kiki, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95-107.
14. Fillmore, Charles and Beryl T. Atkins 1992 Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, Adrienne and Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 75-102.
15. Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay, Laura Michaelis, and Ivan Sag 2003 Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Distributed by Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
16. Fox, Barbara and Sandra Thompson 1990 A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66 (2), 297-316.
17. Goldberg, Adele 1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
18. Greene, J. 1977 The use of WHICH as a non-restrictive relative marker. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.
19. Hawkins, John A. 1999 Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75 (2), 244-285.
20. Holton David, Peter Mackridge, and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1997 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London:Routledge.
21. Ingria, R. 1981 Sentential complementation in Modern Greek. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
22. Joseph, Brian 1980 Recovery of information in relative clauses: Evidence from Greek and Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 16, 237-244.
23. Joseph, Brian and Irene Philippaki-Warburton 1987 Modern Greek. London. Croom Helm.
24. Kay, Paul and Charles Fillmore 1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75 (1), 1-33.
25. Kay, Paul and Karl Zimmer 1990 On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. In Tsohatzidis, Savas (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. London/New York: Routledge, 239-246.
26. Keenan, Edward L. and Bernard Comrie 1979 Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55, 333-351.
27. Kriaras, Emmanouil 1968 [Dictionary of Medieval Demotic Greek]. Thessaloniki: Royal Hellenic Research Foundation.
28. Lambrecht, Knud 1988 There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Axmaker, Shelley, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 319-339.
29. Langacker, Ronald 1993 Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1), 1-38. 2001 What WH means. In Cienki, Alan, Barbara J. Luka, and Michael B. Smith (eds.), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 137-152.
30. Langacker, Ronald 1993 Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1), 1-38. 2001 What WH means. In Cienki, Alan, Barbara J. Luka, and Michael B. Smith (eds.), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 137-152.
31. Mackridge, Peter 1985 The Modern Greek Language: A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Maling, John 1978 An asymmetry with respect to wh-islands. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 74-89.
33. McCawley, James D. 1982 The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53, 99-149. 1988 The Syntactic Phenomena of English, vol. 2. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
34. McCawley, James D. 1982 The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53, 99-149. 1988 The Syntactic Phenomena of English, vol. 2. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
35. Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1996 Interaction of factors in construal: Japanese relative clauses. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 103-124. 1997 Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2000 Extending frame-semantics: Flexibility of complex noun phrase constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest.
36. Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1996 Interaction of factors in construal: Japanese relative clauses. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 103-124. 1997 Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2000 Extending frame-semantics: Flexibility of complex noun phrase constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest.
37. Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1996 Interaction of factors in construal: Japanese relative clauses. In Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 103-124. 1997 Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2000 Extending frame-semantics: Flexibility of complex noun phrase constructions in Japanese. Paper presented at the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Budapest.
38. Nicholas, Nick 1999 The story of pu: The grammaticalization in space and time of a Modern Greek complementiser. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne.
39. Nikiforidou, Kiki 1991 The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics 2 (2), 149-205.
40. Quirk, Randolph 1958 Substitutions and syntactical research. Archivum Linguisticum 10, 37-42.
41. Rice, Sally 1988 Unlikely lexical entries. In Axmaker, Shelley, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 202-212.
42. Romaine, Suzanne 1982 Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Sankoff, Gillian and Penelope Brown 1976 The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52, 631-666.
44. Sweetser, Eve 1999 Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In Janssen, Theo and Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 129-162.
45. Tao, Hongyin and Michael J. McCarthy 2001 Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences 23, 651-677.
46. Theophanopoulou, Dimitra 1985 [Pu relatives in Modem Greek and the omission of the preposition]. [Studies for the Greek Language] 3, 17-45.
47. Traugott, Elizabeth and Bernd Heine 1991 Approaches to Grammaticalization, vols. I and II. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
48. Traugott, Elizabeth and Ekkehard Koenig 1991 The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189-218.
49. Tzartzanos, Achileus 1963 [Modern Greek Syntax]. Athens: OEδB.
50. Varlokosta, Spyridoula 1997 The acquisition of relative clauses in Modern Greek: Evidence for movement. In Sorace, Antonella, Caroline Heycock, and Richard Shillcock (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition Conference. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 184-187.
51. Varlokosta, Spyridoula and Sharon Armon-Lotem 1998 Resumptives and wh-movement in the acquisition of relative clauses in Modern Greek and Hebrew. In Greenhill, Annabel, Mary Hughes, Heather Littlefield, and Hugh Walsh (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Boston University Conference on Language Acquisition. Boston: Cascadilla Press, 737-746.