Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- Index
- References
Part II - Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2023
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 93 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
References
Barcan Marcus, R. (1961). Modalities and intensional languages. Synthese, 13(4), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., and Perry, J. (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Corazza, E., and Korta, K. (2015). Frege on subject matter and identity statements. Analysis, 75(4), 562–565.Google Scholar
de Ponte, M., Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2020). Utterance and context. In Ciecierski, T. and Grabarczyk, P. (eds.) The Architecture of Context and Context-Sensitivity (pp. 15–29). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Ponte, M., Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2021). Four puzzling paragraphs: Frege on “≡” and “=.” Semiotica, 240, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. [1916] (2011). Course in General Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. S. (1970). Proper names and identifying descriptions. Synthese, 21, 335–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Føllesdal, D. [1966] (2004). Referential Opacity and Modal Logic. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1879] (1967). Begriffsschrift, Eine der Arithmetischen Nachgebildete Formelsprache des Reinen Denkens. Trans. S. Bauer-Mengelberg, Begriffsschrift, a Formula Language, Modeled upon that of Arithmetic, for Pure Thought. Halle a. S.: Louis Nebert. Repr. in Van Heijenoort (1967), pp. 1–82.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1892] (1948). Sense and reference. Trans. Max Black of Frege (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. The Philosophical Review, 57(3), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. [1918] (1967). Der gedanke: Eine logische untersuchung. Trans. A. Quinton and M. Quinton, The thought: A logical inquiry. Beitra¨ge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, I (1918–1919), 58–77. Repr. in Strawson (1967), pp. 17–38.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1950). Russell’s theory of descriptions. Analysis, 10(4), 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1971). Intention and uncertainty. Proceedings of the British Academy, 57, 263–279.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Repr. in Grice (1989), pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.) Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2011). Critical Pragmatics: An Inquiry into Reference and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2013). Highlights of critical pragmatics: Reference and the contents of the utterance. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(1), 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korta, K., and Perry, J. (2020). Pragmatics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring edition.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martí, G. (1995). The essence of genuine reference. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24(3), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. (1946). Signs, Language and Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neurath, O., Carnap, R., and Morris, C. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Vol. I, pp. 1–59). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, J. (1977). Frege on demonstratives. The Philosophical Review, 86(4), 474–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. (1988). Cognitive significance and new theories of reference. Noûs, 22(1), 1–18. Repr. in Perry (2000), pp. 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. (2000). The Problem of the Essential Indexical and other Essays. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Perry, J. [2001] (2012). Reference and Reflexivity, 2nd ed. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1948). Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1970). Pragmatics. Synthese, 22, 272–289. Repr. in Stalnaker (1999), pp. 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heijenoort, J. (1967). From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wettstein, H. (1986). Has semantics rested on a mistake? The Journal of Philosophy, 83(4), 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Bartlett, T. (2016). Phasal dynamism and the unfolding of meaning as text. English Text Construction, 9(1), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, T. (2017). Context in systemic functional linguistics: Towards scalar supervenience? In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 375–390). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. (2019). Transmediality and the end of disembodied semiotics. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric, 3(2), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J., McDonald, D., Hiippala, T., Couto-Vale, D., and Costetchi, E. (2019). Systemic functional linguistics and computation. In G. Thompson, W. Bowcher, L., Fontaine, L., and Schonthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 561–586). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., and Hiippala, T. (2020). A question of definitions: Foundations for multimodality. A response to Charles Forceville’s review. Visual Communication, 19, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes, and Control, Vol. I: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (2016a). Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction, 9(1), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (2016b). On describing contexts of situation. In Society in Language, Language in society (pp. 184–205). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (2017). Stratum, delicacy, realisation and rank. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 42–55). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (2019). The clause: An overview of the lexicogrammar. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 92–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowcher, W. (1999). Investigating institutionalization in context. In Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics (pp. 141–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowcher, W. (2017). Field, tenor and mode. In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 391–403). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowcher., W. (2018). The semiotic sense of context vs the material sense of context. Functional Linguistics, 5(5), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. (2003). Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories, Part I: Approaches to the Simplex Clause (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Philadelphia, PA/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C. (2004). Corpus studies and functional linguistic theories. Functions of Language, 11(2), 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C., and Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, D. (1999/2004). Parameters of Context. Mimeo Sydney: Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Butt, D., and Wegener, R. (2008). The work of concepts: Context and metafunction in the systemic functional model. In Hasan, R., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., and Webster, J. (eds.), Continuing Discourse on Language, Vol. II: A Functional Perspective (pp. 589–618). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2019). Applying SFL for understanding and fostering instructed second language development. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L., and Schonthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 512–536). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassens, J. and Wegener, R. (2008). Making use of abstract concepts: Systemic functional linguistics and ambient intelligence. In M. Bramer (ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Theory and Practice II, IFIP 20th World Computer Congress, IFIP AI Stream, vol. 276 of IFIP (pp. 205–214). Milan: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, B. P. (2013). The differential patterned occurrence of ellipsis in texts varied for contextual mode: Some support for the “mode of discourse-textual metafunction” hook-up? In O’Grady, G., Bartlett, T., and Fontaine, L. (eds.), Choice in Language: Applications in Text Analysis (pp. 269–297). Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1987). On Prague school functionalism in linguistics. In Dirven, R. and Fried, V. (eds.), Functionalism in Linguistics (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., and Fried, V. (1987). Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. (1966). On contextual meaning. In Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K., and Robins, R. H. (eds.), In Memory of Firth (pp. 79–95). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (1980). Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of an Interacting Mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (1990). The COMMUNAL project: Two years old and going well. Network: News, Views and Reviews in Systemic Linguistics and Related Areas, 13, 35–39.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. (2000). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, R. (2015). System networks, codes, and knowledge of the universe. In Fawcett, R., Halliday, M., Lamb, S., and Makkai, A. (eds.), Semiotics of Culture and Language, Vol. II: Language and Other Semiotic Systems of Culture (Linguistics: Bloomsbury Academic Collections) (pp. 135–180). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G. (2013). Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D. (2019). The rooms of the house: Grammar at group rank. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 118–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
François, J. (2018). The stance of Systemic Functional Linguistics amongst functional(ist) theories of language and its “systemic” purpose. In Sellami-Baklouti, A. and Fontaine, L. (eds.), Perspectives from Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 6–25). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1965). Linguistics and English Grammar. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Gregory, M., and Carroll, S. (1978). Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A., ed. (1994). What’s Going On Here? Complementary Studies of Professional Talk (Advances in Discourse Processes, Vol. 43). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Language in a Social Perspective: Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1974). Interview with M. A. K. Halliday. In Parret, H. (ed.), Discussing Language (pp. 81–120). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1979/2002). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In Webster, Jonathan (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. I: On Grammar (pp. 196–218). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1981/2002). Text semantics and clause grammar: How is a text like a clause? In Webster, Jonathan (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. I: On Grammar (pp. 219–260). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). Corpus linguistics and probabilistic grammar. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. (pp. 30–44). New York/London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1991/2007). The notion of “context” in language education. In Webster, Jonathan (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. IX: Language and Education (pp. 269–290). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In Putz, M. (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution (pp. 59–97). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994/2002a). So you say “pass” … thank you three muchly. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. II: Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse (pp. 228–254). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994/2002b). How do you mean? In Webster, Jonathan (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. I: On Grammar (pp. 352–368). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). On language in relation to the evolution of human consciousness. In Allen, S. (ed.), Of Thoughts and Words: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 92: “The Relation between Language and Mind” (pp. 45–84). London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1997/2002). Text as semantic choice in social contexts (1977). In Webster, Jonathan (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. II: Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse (pp. 23–84). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Introduction: A Personal Perspective. In Webster, J. (ed.), The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, Vol. I: On Grammar (pp. 1–16). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2003. On Language and Linguistics, Vol. III, The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, ed. Webster, J.. Continuum: London.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2013). Meaning as choice. In Fontaine, L., Bartlett, T., and O’Grady, G. (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice (pp. 15–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004/2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. (1978). Text in the systemic functional model. In Dressler, W. (ed.), Current Trends in Text Linguistics (pp. 228–246). Berlin: Walter Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. (1980). What’s going on: A dynamic view of context. In The Seventh LACUS Forum (pp. 106–121). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (1984). What kind of resource is language? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. (1995). The conception of context in text. In Fries, P. H. and Gregory, M. (eds.), Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday (pp. 183–283). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (1999). Speaking with reference to context. In Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics: Systemic Perspectives (pp. 219–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. (2004). Analysing discursive variation. In Young, L. and Harrison, C. (eds.), Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in Social Change (pp. 15–52). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (2010). The meaning of “not” is not in “not.” In Mahboob, A. and Knight, N. (eds.), Appliable Linguistics (pp. 267–306). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. (2014). Towards a paradigmatic description of context: Systems, metafunctions, and semantics. Functional Linguistics, 1(9), 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2019). Construal. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations of Language (pp. 140–166). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lukin, A. (2017). Ideology and the text-in-context relation. Functional Linguistics, 4(16), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0050-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukin, A., Moore, A., Herke, M., Wegener, R., and Wu, C. (2011). Halliday’s model of register revisited and explored. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiorani, A. (2017). Making meaning through movement: A functional grammar of dance. In Sindoni, M. G., Wildfeuer, J., and O’Halloran, K. L. (eds.), Mapping Multimodal Performance Studies (pp. 39–60). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In Benson, J. D., and Greaves, W. S. (eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. I (pp. 248–274). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. (1993). A contextual theory of language. In Cope, W. and Kalantzis, M. (eds.), The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Literacy (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education) (pp. 116–136). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (1997). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Christie, F. and Martin, J. (eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School (pp. 3–39). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2019). Discourse semantics. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L., and Schonthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 358–381). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. M. (2015). Register in the round: Registerial cartography. Functional Linguist, 2(9), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. Wang, B., and Ma, Y. (2019). Expounding register and registerial cartography in systemic functional linguistics: An interview with Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, WORD, 65(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2019.1599544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickan, P. (2019). Language and education. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L., and Schonthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 537–560). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T. F. (1957/1975). The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: A situational statement. In Mitchell, T. F. (ed.), Principles of Firthian Linguistics (pp. 1–41). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Moore, A. (2019). Language and medicine. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 651–695). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, A. R. (2020). Progress and tensions in modelling register as a semantic configuration. Language, Context and Text: The Social Semiotics Forum, 2(1), 22–58.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. (1990). Change in Language: Whitney, Breal and Wegener. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., and Clarke, D. (1996). Language, Action and Context: The Early History of Pragmatics in Europe and America. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (2001). The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (1999). Context in dynamic modelling. In Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics (pp. 63–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (2020). On the abstractness of levels of description in Systemic Functional Linguistics. In Tucker, G., Huang, G., Fontaine, L., and McDonald, E. (eds.), Approaches to Systemic Functional Grammar: Convergence and Divergence (pp. 57–75). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (2021). Dynamic modelling of context: Field, tenor and mode revisited. Lingua, 261, 102952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., and Wignell, P. (2019). SFL and multimodal discourse analysis. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W. L., Fontaine, L., and Schonthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 433–461). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polguère, A. (2015). Lexical contextualism: The Abélard Syndrome. In Gala, N., Rapp, R., and Bel-Enguix, G. (eds.), Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon, 48 (pp. 53–73). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebori, V. (2002). The legacy of J. R. Firth: A report on recent research. Historiographia Linguistica, 29(1/2), 165–190.Google Scholar
Stöckl, H. (2019). Linguistic multimodality – multimodal linguistics: A state-of-the-art sketch. In Wildfeuer, J., Pflaeging, J., Bateman, J., Seizoy, O., and Tseng, C.-I. (eds.), Multimodality: Disciplinary Thoughts and the Challenge of Diversity (pp. 41–68). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, K. (2017). Context and meaning in the Sydney architecture of systemic functional linguistics? In Bartlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 438–456). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M. (2011). The syntax–semantics interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday’s interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 1100–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taverniers, M. (2019). Semantics. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D., D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 55–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. (1999). Acting the part: Lexico-grammatical choices and contextual factors. In Ghadessy, M. (ed.), Text and Context in Functional Linguistics (pp. 101–124). Philadelphia, PA/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ure, J. (1969). Practical register: Parts I and II. English Language Teaching, 23(1/2).Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A CDA perspective. In Wodak, R. and Chilton, P. (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. (pp. 71–100) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, E. (1983). Contrasting schematic structures in service encounter. Applied Linguistics, 4, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, R. (2011). Parameters of context: From theory to model and application. Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.Google Scholar
Wegener, R. (2016). Studying language in society and society through language: Context and multimodal communication. In Bowcher, W. and Liang, J. (eds.), Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan (pp. 227–248). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, R., and Cassens, J. (2019). Blending SFL and Activity Theory to model communication and artefact use: Examples from human–computer interaction. In Kaltenbacher, M. and Stöckl, H. (eds.), Analyzing the Media: A Systemic Functional Approach (pp. 167–188). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Wegener, R., Cassens, J., and Butt, D. (2008). Start making sense: Systemic-functional linguistics and ambient intelligence. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle 22(5), 629–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., Russell, N., and Irwin, D. (2017). On the notion of abstraction in systemic functional linguistics. Functional Linguistics, 4(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0047-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, M. 2019. Language and social media. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., and Schonthal, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics (pp. 715–738). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Anward, J., and Linell, P. (2016). On the grammar of utterances: Putting the form vs. substance distinction back on its feet. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 48(1), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2022). Formalism and, not vs, functionalism. Lingbuzz. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006337.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., and Hanna, J. E. (2017). Psycholinguistic approaches: Meaning and understanding. In Weigand, E. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue (pp. 93–108). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1990). Theory of Language (trans. of Sprachtheorie, 1934). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chater, N., McCauley, S. M., and Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., and Chater, N. (2016). Creating Language: Integrating Evolution, Acquisition, and Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (2015). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., and Findlay, J. Y. (2019). Lexical functional grammar. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook (pp. 123–154). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. (2015). The role of culture in the emergence of language. In MacWhinney, B. and O’Grady, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence (pp. 354–376). Malden, MA/Oxford/Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., and Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. (2008). Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Learning and Motivation, 49, 209–246.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M. (2004). The complementarity of the process and pattern interpretations of Functional Grammar. In L. Mackenzie, J. and Gómez González, M. Á. (eds.), A New Architecture for Functional Grammar (pp. 151–178). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S. L., Bod, R., and Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279 (1747), 4522–4531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P., Reilly, J., Leaper, C., and Baker, N. (1985). The structural and functional status of single-word utterances and their relationship to early multi-word speech. In Barrett, M. (ed.), Children’s Single-Word Speech (pp. 233–267). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gregoromichelaki, E., and Kempson, R. (2019). Procedural syntax. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Deirdre Wilson (pp. 209–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., and Stokhof, M. (2006). Dynamic semantics. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Vol. IV, pp. 28–33). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hannay, M. (1991). Pragmatic function assignment and word order variation in a functional grammar of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., and Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., and Mackenzie, J. L. (2014). Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics, 24(2), 203–227.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., and Pullum, G. K., eds. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., and Audring, J. (2020). The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., and Wittenberg, E. (2014). What you can say without syntax: A hierarchy of grammatical complexity. In Newmeyer, F. J. and Preston, L. B. (eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity (pp. 65–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornmesser, S. (2019). The multiparadigmatic structure of science and generative grammar. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook (pp. 493–520). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Papi, M. Bertuccelli and Verschueren, J. (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 61–129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S., and Parodi, C., eds. (2013). The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. (2014a). Morphosyntax in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Carnie, A., Siddiqi, D., and Sato, Y. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Syntax (pp. 627–646). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. (2014b). The Contextual Component in a dialogic FDG. Pragmatics, 24(2), 249–273.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. (2020). Functional approaches. In Aarts, B., Bowie, J., and Popova, G. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of English Grammar (pp. 180–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momma, S., and Phillips, C. (2018). The relationship between parsing and generation. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S., and Machicao y, Priemer, A. (2019). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook (pp. 317–359). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, J. (2017). Language without narrow syntax. The Linguistic Review, 34(4), 687–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2013). Что дѣлать? What is to be done? Plenary talk to the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, January 4, 2013.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, , H., and Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122 (3), 280–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J., and Garrod, S. (2021). Understanding Dialogue: Language Use and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., and Sag, I. (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rappe, S. (2019). Now, never, or coming soon? Prediction and efficient language processing. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26(2/3), 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L., ed. (2004). The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. II. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (2012). The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J., and Mauranen, A. (2006). Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. (2022). Combinatory Categorial Grammar. https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/steedman/papers/ccg/moravcsik2.pdf.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. (2016). Information structure and production planning. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 541–561). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2017). The concept of language in an utterance grammar. In Weigand, E. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue (pp. 214–233). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Sequences and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Barcelona, A., ed. (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., and Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2006). Ort und Weg: Die sprachliche Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen und Französischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of “Over”: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. ( 2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010). Lectal variation in constructional semantics: “Benefactive” ditransitives in Dutch. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 191–221). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. ( 2009). Towards a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., and Divjak, D., eds. (2015). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., ed. (2017). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., and Pörings, R., eds. (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, V., and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, V., Bergen, B., and Zinken, J., eds. (2007). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. ( 1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, A. (ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics, 27, 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In Ruiz de, F. Ibáñez, Mendoza and Cervel, S. Peña (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interactions (pp. 163–189). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., ed. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H., eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Tabakowska, E., Choinski, M., and Wiraszka, L. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back (pp. 71–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2015). From structure to context: Modern linguistics from a distance. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 35, 35–51.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y., eds. (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). “Theories are buildings” revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B., ed. (2005). From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., and Quinn, N., eds. (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. (2003). What Is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics. Turku: Åbo Akademis tryckeri.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. ( 1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., and Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2020). An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 112–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., and Dirven, R., eds. (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., and Geeraerts, D., eds. (2013). Contexts of Use in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Thematic issue of Journal of Pragmatics). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., and Taylor, J. R., eds. (2014). The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Darden, B. J., Bailey, C.-J., and Davidson, A. (eds.), Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 71–80). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Montague, R. ( 1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. ( 2007). Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 543–565). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K., and Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., and Reif, M., eds. (2012). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A. (2010). Awesome insights into semantic variation. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 85–110). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. ( 2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C. (2009). Language as a biocultural niche and social institution. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 289–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A. (2014). The pluricentricity of Portuguese: A sociolectometrical approach to divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In A. da Silva, Soares (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions (pp. 143–188). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2015). Prototype effects in grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 562–579). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, X., and Taylor, J. R. eds. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E., and Nathan, G. S. (2020). Cognitive Linguistics for Linguists. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Speelman, D., and Geeraerts, D. ( 2012). Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 749–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2008). The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C., and Itkonen, E. (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 215–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Geeraerts, D., and Speelman, D. (2015). Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for “woman” in Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar