On the continuous debate about discreteness

Cognitive Linguistics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 107-151

  Langacker, Ronald W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Discreteness vs. Continuity; Grammar; Metonymy; Network model; Reference point

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744819777     PISSN: 09365907     EISSN: 16133641     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/COG.2006.003     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allwood, Jens 2003 Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Cuyckens, Dirven, and Taylor (eds.), 29-65.
2. Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.) 2000 Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
3. Bybee, Joan L. 2000 The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow and Kemmer (eds.), 65-85.
4. Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds.) 2004 Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
5. Cuyckens, Hubert, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor (eds.) 2003 Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Elman, Jeffrey L. 1990 Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14, 179-211.
7. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner 2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
8. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O'Connor 1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501-538.
9. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Haiman, John 1980 Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua 50, 329-357.
11. Hopper, Paul J. 1998 Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 155-175.
12. Labov, William 1973 The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, Charles-James and Roger W. Shuy (eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 340-373.
13. 1978 Denotational structure. In Farkas, Donka, Wesley M. Jacobsen, and Karol W. Todrys (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 220-260.
14. Lakoff, George 1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. 1990 The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1, 39-74.
16. Lakoff, George, and Rafael E. Núñez 2000 Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.
17. Langacker, Ronald W. 1984 Active zones. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10, 172-188.
18. 1987a Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
19. 1987b Nouns and verbs. Language 63, 53-94.
20. 1988 A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 127-161.
21. 1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
22. 1993 Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1-38.
23. 1994 The limits of continuity: Discreteness in cognitive semantics. In Fuchs, Catherine and Bernard Victorri (eds.), Continuity in Linguistic Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 9-20.
24. 1995a Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar. In Lee, Ik-Hwan (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3. Seoul: Hanshin, 149-172.
25. 1995b Possession and possessive constructions. In Taylor, John R. and Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 51-79.
26. 1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 1-32.
27. 1998 Indeterminacy in semantics and grammar. In Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis (ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva II. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 649-672.
28. 2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow and Kemmer (eds.), 1-63.
29. 2001a Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes 12, 7-33.
30. 2001b Topic, subject, and possessor. In Simonsen, Hanne Gram and Rolf Theil Endresen (eds.), A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 11-48.
31. 2003 Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. Korean Linguistics 18, 1-64.
32. 2004a Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11, 77-113.
33. 2004b Metonymy in grammar. Journal of Foreign Languages 6, 2-24.
34. 2004c Form, meaning, and behavior: The cognitive grammar analysis of double subject constructions. In Contini-Morava, Kirsner, and Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds.), 21-60.
35. To appear a Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes.
36. To appear b Metonymic grammar.
37. Łozowski, Przemyslaw 2000 Vagueness in Language: From Truth-Conditional Synonymy to Unconditional Polysemy. Lublin: Marie Curie-Sklodowski University Press.
38. Nikiforidou, Kiki 2005 Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 169-206.
39. Reddy, Michael J. 1979 The conduit metaphor - A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-324.
40. Reid, Wallis 2004 Monosemy, homonymy and polysemy. In Contini-Morava, Kirsner, and Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds.), 93-129.
41. Rice, Sally 1996 Prepositional prototypes. In Pütz, Martin and René Dirven (eds.), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 135-165.
42. Rodd, Jennifer M., M. Gareth Gaskell, and William D. Marslen-Wilson 2004 Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science 28, 89-104.
43. Ross, John R. 1972 The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 312-328.
44. 1987 Islands and syntactic prototypes. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23, 309-320.
45. Sandra, Dominiek, and Sally Rice 1995 Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind-the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics 6, 89-130.
46. Tylor, John R. 2004 Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47. Thompson, Sandra A. 2002 "Object complements" and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125-164.
48. van Hoek, Karen 1995 Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 71, 310-340.
49. 1997 Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Wierzbicka, Anna 1984 Cups and mugs: Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4, 205-255.
51. 1995 Dictionaries vs. encyclopaedias: How to draw the line. In Davis, Philip W. (ed.), Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 289-315.
52. Zlatev, Jordan 2003 Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Cuyckens, Dirven, and Taylor (eds.), 447-494.