Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics

Human Cognitive Processing

Volumn 24, Issue , 2009, Pages 77-104

  Glynn, Dylan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85190126279     PISSN: 13876724     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/hcp.24.08gly     Document Type: Chapter

References (123)

1. Atkins, B. 1994. Analyzing the verbs of seeing: A frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 42-56.
2. Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bellavia, E. 1996. The German über. In The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, M. Pütz & R. Dirven (eds), 73-107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Boers, F. 1996. Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey Along the Up-Down and Front-Back Dimensions. Tübingen: Narr.
5. Brugman, C. 1983. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. Trier: LAUT.
6. Colleman, T. In Press. Beyond the dative alternation: the semantics of the Dutch aan-dative. In Usage-Based Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-Driven Approaches to Conceptual Structure, D. Glynn & K. Fischer (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Croft, W. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 151-173.
8. Croft, W. This Volume. Toward a social Cognitive Linguistics. In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9. Cruse, A. 1995. Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. In Computational Lexical Semantics, P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (eds), 33-49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cuyckens, H. 1993. The Dutch spatial preposition “in”: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In The Semantics of Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), 27-72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Cuyckens, H. 1994. Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial preposition op. In Kognitive Semantik. Ergebnisse, probleme, Perspektiven, M. Schwartz (ed.), 179-196. Tübingen: Narr.
12. Cuyckens, H. 1995. Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions Door and Langs. Cognitive Linguistics 6: 183-207.
13. Cuyckens, H., Sandra, D. & Rice, S. 1997. Towards an empirical lexical semantics. In Human Contact through Language and Linguistics, B. Smieja & M. Tasch (eds), 35-54. Frankfurt: Lang.
14. Deane, P. 1988. Polysemy and cognition. Lingua 75: 325-361.
15. Deane, P. 2006. Multimodal spatial representation. On the semantic unity of over. In From Perception to Meaning. Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Hampe (ed.), 235-284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Dirven, R. 1981. Metaphors of spatial relations. In Anglistentag Trier 1981, J. Hasler (ed.), 63-91. Frankfurt: Lang.
17. Dirven, R., Goosens, L., Putseys, Y. & Vorlat, E. 1982. The Scene of Linguistic Action and its Perspectivization by Speak, Talk, Say, and Tell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Divjak, D. 2006. Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 19-56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. Divjak, D. & Gries, St. Th. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2: 23-60.
20. Dmitrieva, E. 2005. Об экспансии в русском языке констукций с предлогом пo. Scando-Slavic 51: 67-83.
21. Evans, V. 2004. The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Evans, V. 2005. The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics 41: 33-75.
23. Evans, V. & Tyler, A. 2004a. Rethinking English 'prepositions of movement': The case of to and through. In Adpositions of Movement, H. Cuyckens, W. De Mulder & T. Mortelmans (eds), 247-270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24. Evans, V. & Tyler, A. 2004b. Spatial experience, lexical structure, and motivation: The case of in. In Linguistics Studies in Motivation, G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds), 157-192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
25. Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222-254.
26. Fillmore, C. & Atkins, B. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of 'crawl.' In Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (eds), 91-110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Fischer, K. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics. The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
28. Frohning, D. 2008. From grammatical variation to cognition: Insights from a case study on causal markers in German. In From Gram to Mind: Grammar as Cognition, J. R. Lapaire, G. Desagulier, & J. B. Guignard (eds), 167-188. Bordeaux: Presses universitaires de Bordeaux.
29. Fuchs, C. 1987. Ambiguïté, vague, polysémie, et continu. Quaderni di Semantica 8: 299-305.
30. Fuchs, C. 1991. Polysémie, interprétation et typicalité. In Sémantique et Cognition: Catégories, Protoyypes, Typicalité, D. Dubois (ed.), 161-170. Paris: CNRS.
31. Geeraerts, D. 1989. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory, D. Geeraerts (ed.), 587-612. [Linguistics 27]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32. Geeraerts, D. 1992. The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen 81: 205-230.
33. Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 223-272.
34. Geeraerts, D. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Geeraerts, D. 1999. Beer and semantics. In Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, L. De Stadler & C. Eyrich (eds), 35-55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36. Geeraerts, D. 2000. Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. In Meaning and Cognition, L. Albertazzi (ed.), 79-101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. Geeraerts, D. 2005. Lectal data and empirical variation in Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interactions, F. Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (eds), 163-189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Geeraerts, D. 2006. Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics. Current Applications and Future Perspectives, G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibàñez (eds), 3-31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
39. Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S. & Bakema, P. 1994. The Structure of Lexical Variation. Meaning, Naming, and Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
40. Gilquin, G. 2003. Causative get and have. So close, So different. Journal of English Linguistics 31: 125-148.
41. Gilquin, G. 2006. The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 159-192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
42. Glynn, D. 2002. Love and Anger. The grammatical structure of conceptual metaphors. Cognitive Approaches to Metaphor. Special edition of Style 36: 541-559.
43. Glynn, D. 2003. Polysemy and over-polysemy. A three tiered approach to sense variation. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Logroño, Spain.
44. Glynn, D. 2004a. Cognitive constructs. Perceptual processing and conceptual categories between mind, language, and culture. In Language, Culture, and Cognition, A. Soares da Silva, A. Torres & M. Gonçalves (eds), 247-268. Coimbra: Almedina.
45. Glynn, D. 2004b. Constructions at the crossroads. The place of construction grammar between field and frame. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2: 197-233.
46. Glynn, D. 2006a. Iconicity and the grammar-lexis interface. In Insistent Images. Iconicity in Language and Literature, E. Tabakowska & C. Ljungberg (eds), 267-286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47. Glynn, D. 2006b. Concept delimitation and pragmatic implicature. Perspectives on Metonymy, K. Kosecki (ed.), 157-174. Frankfurt: Lang.
48. Glynn, D. 2006c. Conceptual metonymy - A study in cognitive models, reference-points, and domain boundaries. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 42: 85-102.
49. Glynn, D. 2008. Arbitrary structure, cognitive grammar, and the partes orationis. A study in Polish paradigms. In Naturalness and Iconicity in Linguistics, K. Willems & L. De Cuypere (eds), 299-333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50. Glynn, D. Forthcoming. The semantics of extralinguistic variation. A quantitative study of dialect effects on polysemy. In Cognitive Sociolinguistics, G. Kristiansen, D. Geeraerts & Y. Peirsman (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
51. Glynn, D. In press. Lexical fields, grammatical constructions, and synonymy. A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage-Patterns, H.-J. Schmid & S. Handl (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
52. Glynn, D. & Fischer, K. (eds). In press. Usage-Based Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-Driven Approaches to Conceptual Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
53. Glynn, D. & Robinson, J. (eds). In press. Polysemy and Synonymy. Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
54. Gries, St. Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum.
55. Gries, St. Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 57-100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
56. Gries, St. Th. & Divjak, D. This Volume. Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
57. Gries, St. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on 'alternations'. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97-129.
58. Gries, St. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (eds). 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
59. Gries, St. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. In Press. Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Linguistics, J. Newman & S. Rice (eds). Stanford: CSLI.
60. Grondelaers, S. & Geeraerts, D. 2003. Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds), 67-92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
61. Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D. & Speelman, D. 2007. A case for cognitive corpus linguistics. In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg & M. Spivey (eds), 149-170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
62. Herskovits, A. 1988. Spatial expressions and the placticity of meaning. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 271-297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
63. Heylen, K. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, S. Kepser & M. Reis (eds), 241-264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
64. Heylen, K., Tummers, J. & Geeraerts, D. 2008. Methodological issues in corpus-based Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (eds), 91-128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
65. Hottenroth, P.-M. 1991. Präpositionen und Objektkonzepte. Ein kognitiv orientiertes, zweistufiges Modell für die Semantik lokaler Präpositionen. In Approaches to Prepositions, G. Rauh (ed.), 9-28. Tübingen: Narr.
66. Janda, L. 2007. What makes Russian bi-aspectual verbs special. In Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain, D. Divjak & A. Kochanska (eds), 83-111. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
67. Janda, L. & Solovyev, V. Forthcoming. Antonyms as near-synonyms: 'sadness' and 'happiness' in Russian. In Polysemy and Synonymy. Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics, D. Glynn & J. Robinson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
68. Kemmer, S. 2006. Lexical semantics and corpora: English dimensional terms. Keynote Lecture at the First International Conference of the Swedish Cognitive Linguistics Association. Umeå, Sweden.
69. Kleiber, G. 1983. Polysémie et référence: la polysémie, un phénomène pragmatique? Cahiers de lexicologie 44: 85-103.
70. Kleiber, G. 1999. Problèmes de sémantique: la polysémie en questions. Villeneuve-d'Ascq: Septentrion.
71. Kreitzer, A. 1997. Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 291-325.
72. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What categories can reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73. Langacker, R. 1988. A usage-based model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 127-161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
74. Langacker, R. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Usage Based Models of Language, S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (eds), 1-63. Stanford: CSLI.
75. Langacker, R. This Volume. Constructions and constructional meaning. In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
76. Lehrer, A. 1982. Wine and Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
77. Lehrer, A. 1990. Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of the lexicon. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 207-246.
78. Lemmens, M. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity. Causative Constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
79. Lemmens, M. 2006. Caused posture. Experiential patterns emerging from corpus research. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 263-298. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
80. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 1998. Dynamic perspective on antonymous polysemy. In Making Meaningful Choices in English, R. Schulze (ed.), 121-137. Tübingen: Narr.
81. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 1999. The 'tertium comparationis' and the concept of equivalence. In Cognitive Perspectives on Language, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 53-76. Frankfurt: Lang.
82. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 2002. Polysemy: Research methodology and mechanisms. In Cognitive Linguistics Today, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (eds), 81-96. Frankfurt: Lang.
83. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds), 139-169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84. Lindner, S. 1983. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions. LAUT: Trier.
85. Meex, B. 2001. The spatial and non-spatial sense of the German preposition über. In Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics, H. Cuyckens & B. Zawada (eds), 1-36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
86. Newman, J. & Rice, S. 2004. Patterns of usage for English sit, stand, and lie: A cognitive exploration in corpus linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 351-396.
87. Newman, J. & Rice, S. 2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 225-260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
88. Newman, J. & Rice, S. (eds). In press. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford: CSLI.
89. Picoche, J. 1994. A 'Continuous Definition' of polysemous items: Its basis, resources and limits. In Continuity in Linguistic Semantics, C. Fuchs & B. Victorri (eds), 77-107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
90. Rice, S. 1999. Aspects of prepositions and prepositional aspect. In Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, L. De Stadler & Chr. Eyrich (eds), 225-247. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
91. Rice, S., Sandra, D. & Vanrespaille, M. 1999. Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time. In Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha & S. Wilcox (eds.), 107-127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
92. Radden, G. 1981. Die übertragenen Bedeutungen der englishen Raumpräpositionen. In Kassusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik, G. Radden & R. Dirven (eds), 133-179. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher.
93. Rémi-Giraud, S. & Panier, L. 2003. La Polysémie ou l'Empire des Sens. Lexique, Discours, Représentations. Lyon: Press Universitaire de Lyon.
94. Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 1989. Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask. In Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory, D. Geeraerts (ed.), 613-661. [Linguistics 27]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
95. Rudzka-Ostyn, B. 1995. Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy, and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective, L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen & J. Vanparys (eds), 205-244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
96. Sandra, D. 1998. What linguists can and can't tell you about the human mind. A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 361-378.
97. Sandra, D. & Cuyckens, H. 1999. Fuzzy at first sight: The case of two Dutch prepositions. In Cognition and Function in Language, B. Fox, D. Jurafsky & L. Michaelis (eds), 200-219. Stanford: CSLI.
98. Sandra, D. & Rice, S. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind - the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics 6: 89-130.
99. Schmid, H. J. 1993. Cottage und Co., idea, start vs. begin: Die Kategorisierung als Grundprinzip einer differenzierten Bedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
100. Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
101. Schulze, R. 1988. A short story of down. In Understanding the Lexicon. Meaning, Sense, and World Knowledge in Lexical Semantics, W. Hüllen & R. Schulze (eds), 395-414. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
102. Schulze, R. 1994. Image schemata and the semantics of off. In Kognitive Semantik. Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven, M. Schwartz (ed.), 197-213. Tübingen: Narr.
103. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, St. Th. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209-243.
104. Stefanowitsch, A. & Stefan Th. Gries (eds). 2006. Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
105. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
106. Taylor, J. 1993. Prepositions: Patterns of polysemisation and strategies of disambiguation. In The Semantics of Prepositions, C. Zelinksy-Wibbelt (ed.), 151-175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
107. Taylor, J. 2003a. Cognitive models of polysemy. In Polysemy - Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language, B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (eds), 31-48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
108. Taylor, J. 2003b. Polysemy's paradoxes. Language Sciences 25: 637-655.
109. Tuggy, D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 148-162.
110. Tuggy, D. 1999. Linguistic evidence for polysemy in the mind. Cognitive Linguistics 10: 343-368.
111. Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. 2005. Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics. A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 225-261.
112. Tyler, A. & Evans, V. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77: 724-65.
113. Tyler, A. & Evans, V. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
114. Vandeloise, C. 1984. L'Espace en Français. Paris: Seuil.
115. Vandeloise, C. 1990. Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In Meanings and Prototypes. Studies on Linguistic Categorization, S. Tsohatzidis (ed.), 403-437. London: Routledge.
116. Victorri, B. & Fuchs., C. 1996. La Polysémie: Construction Dynamique du Sens. Paris: Hermès.
117. Wulff, S. 2006. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 101-126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
118. Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, St. Th. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In Aspects of Meaning Construction, G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds.), 265-281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
119. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1986. An empirically based approach towards a system of semantic features. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics 11: 7-12.
120. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1993. Interpreting and translating prepositions: A cognitively based formalization. In The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), 351-390. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
121. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 2000. Discourse and the Continuity of Reference. Representing Mental Categorization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
122. Zeschel, A. (ed.). 2008. Usage-Based Approaches to Language Processing and Representation. Special Edition of Cognitive Linguistics 19.
123. Zlatev, J. 2003. Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (eds), 447-494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.