We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An abstract 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.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
References
Broccias, Cristiano. 2003. The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2010. Naïve v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review27(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite complementation: A usage-based study of infinitive and -ing clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. On the semantic nature of see. Linguistic Inquiry10, 347–52.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Networks: Advances in Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2010. An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar