Achard, Michel. 2008. Teaching construal: cognitive pedagogical grammar. In Robinson, R. and Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 432–55. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, Blevins, James P., and Malouf, Robert. 2009. Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Blevins, Jim P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in grammar, 54–82. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Joshua, Nocera, Christopher C., and Bargh, John A.. 2010. Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science 328, 1712–15.Google Scholar

Ahlers, Jocelyn. 1999. Proposal for the use of cognitive linguistics in Hupa language revitalization. PhD dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2005. Conversational routines in English: convention and creativity. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences 30, 383–422.Google Scholar

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1999. Towards a theory of desirability in conditional reasoning. In Kamio, A. and Takami, K. (eds.), Function and structure: in honor of Susumu Kuno, 195–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Akhtar, Nameera. 1999. Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26, 339–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alexander, Marc, and Bramwell, Ellen. 2014. Mapping metaphors of wealth and want: a digital approach. Studies in the Digital Humanities 1, 1–19.Google Scholar

Alibali, Martha W., Heath, Dana C., and Myers, Heather J.. 2001. Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: some gestures are meant to be seen. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alibali, Martha W., Bassok, Miriam, Solomon, Karen O., Syc, Sharon E., and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 1999. Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science 10(4), 327–33.Google Scholar

Alibali, Martha W., Spencer, Robert C., Knox, Lucy, and Kita, Sotaro. 2011. Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science 22(9), 1138–44.Google Scholar

Allan, Kathryn. 2008. Metaphor and metonymy: a diachronic approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Al-Sharafi, Abdul. 2004. Textual metonymy: a semiotic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alverson, Hoyt. 1994. Semantics and experience: universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Amberger, Mengistu (ed.). 2007. The language of memory in a crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2008. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 357–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, and Rowland, C. F.. 2009. Predicting children’s errors with negative questions: testing a schema-combination account. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2), 225–66.Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., and Theakston, A. L.. 2015. The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 42(02), 239–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F., Freudenthal, Daniel, and Chang, Franklin. 2012. Avoiding dative overgeneralisation errors: semantics, statistics, or both? Language and Cognitive Processes 29(2), 218–43.Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., and Bidgood, A.. 2013. The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: word learning, morphology, and verb argument structure. WIREs Cognitive Science 4(1), 47–62.Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 2000. Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 2014. Cognitive psychology and its implications, 8th edn. New York: Worth.Google Scholar

Anderson, Michael L. 2010. Neural reuse: a fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 245–313.Google Scholar

Anderwald, Lieselotte, and Kortmann, Bernd. 2013. Applying typological methods in dialectology. In Krug, Manfred and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 313–33. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Andrén, Mats. 2010. Children’s gestures between 18 and 30 months. Lund: Media Tryck.Google Scholar

Anketa. 1997. Anketa aspektologičeskogo seminara filologičeskogo fakulteta MGU. Trudy aspektologičeskogo seminara filologičeskogo fakulteta MGU, vol. 2.Google Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: P. Mardaga.Google Scholar

Antić, Eugenia. 2012. Relative frequency effects in Russian morphology. In Gries, Stefan Th. and Divjak, Dagmar S. (eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and processing, 83–107. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antilla, Raimo. 2008. Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard (eds.), Blackwell handbook of historical linguistics, 425–40. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Archangeli, Diana, 1988. Aspects of Underspecification Theory. Phonology 5(2), 183–208.Google Scholar

Arendholz, Jenny, Bublitz, Wolfram, Kirner, Monika, and Zimmermann, Iris. 2013. Food for thought – or, what’s (in) a recipe? A diachronic analysis of cooking instructions. In Gerhardt, Cornelia, Frobenius, Maximiliane, and Ley, Susanne (eds.) Culinary linguistics: the chef’s special, 119–37. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Armstrong, David F. 1983. Iconicity, arbitrariness, and duality of patterning in signed and spoken language: perspectives on language evolution. Sign Language Studies 38, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armstrong, David F., and Wilcox, Sherman. 2007. The gestural origin of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, David F., Stokoe, William C., and Wilcox, Sherman E.. 1994. Signs of the origin of syntax. Current Anthropology 35(4), 349–68.Google Scholar

Armstrong, David F., Stokoe, William C., and Wilcox, Sherman E.. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arppe, Antti. 2008. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography – a study of synonymy. PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Athanasiadou, Amgeliki, and Dirven, René. 1997. Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. In Athanasiadou, A. and Dirven, R. (eds.), On conditionals again, 61–96. Amsterdam: Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Atkins, Sue, Rundell, Michael, and Sato, Hiroaki. 2003. The contribution of FrameNet to practical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3), 333–57.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan (eds.). 2011. Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, John L. 1961. The meaning of a word. In Urmson, J. O. and Warnock, Geoffrey (eds.), Philosophical papers, 55–75. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Aziz-Zadeh, Lisa, Wilson, Stephen M., Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Iacoboni, Marco. 2006. Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology 16(18), 1818–23.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. V. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Mirya (eds.), Corpus linguistics: an international handbook, 900–17. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 295–328.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 94–117.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, P., Durdjevic, D. Filipovic, Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–82.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Endresen, Anna, Janda, Laura A., Makarova, Anastasia, and Nesset, Tore. 2013. Making choices in Russian: pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Space and time in Russian temporal expressions. Special issue of Russian Linguistics 37(3), 253–91.Google Scholar

Backus, Ad, and Mos, Maria. 2011. Islands of productivity in corpus data and acceptability judgments: contrasting two potentiality constructions in Dutch. In Schönefeld, Doris (ed.), Converging evidence: methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research, 165–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Badarneh, Muhammad A. 2003. The rhetorical question as a discursive and stylistic device in the Quran. PhD Dissertation. Arizona State University.Google Scholar

Bakeman, Roger, and Adamson, Lauren B.. 1984. Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother-infant and peer-infant interaction. Child Development 55(4), 1278–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baker, Collin. 2012. FrameNet, current collaborations and future goals. Language Resources and Evaluation 46, 269–86.Google Scholar

Baker, Collin. 2014. FrameNet: a knowledge base for natural language processing. Proceedings of Frame Semantics in NLP: a workshop in honor of Chuck Fillmore at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 2014), 1–5, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar

Baker, Collin, and Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2002. FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In Larson, J. and Paster, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27–38. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Department.Google Scholar

Baker, Collin, Fillmore, Charles J., and Cronin, Beau. 2003. The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography 16, 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1963 [1984]. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Trans. Emerson, Caryl. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1975 [1981]. The dialogic imagination. Ed. Holquist, Michael, trans. Emerson, Caryl and Holquist, Michael. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1979 [1986]. Speech genres and other late essays. Trans. McGee, V. W.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bal, Mieke. 2009. Narratology: introduction to the theory of narrative, 3rd edn. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable sentences: narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Bangerter, Adrian. 2004. Using pointing and describing to achieve joint focus of attention in dialogue. Psychological Science 15, 415–19.Google Scholar

Bannard, Colin, and Matthews, Danielle. 2008. Stored word sequences in language learning: the effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science 19(3), 241–48.Google Scholar

Bánréti, Zoltán. 2010. Recursion in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 24(11), 906–14.Google Scholar

Banville, John. 2005. The sea. London: Picador.Google Scholar

Barabási, Albert-László. 2003. Linked: how everything is connected to everything else and what it means. New York: Plume.Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio. 2003. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda (eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 81–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio. 2010. Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review 23, 134–55.Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio. 2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In Benczes, Reka, Barcelona, Antonio, and de Mendoza, Francisco Ruiz (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view, 7–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: a false dichotomy. Morphology 21(1), 619–54.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 438–57. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Eythórsson, Thorhallur. 2012. Reconstructing syntax: construction grammar and the comparative method. In Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 261–312. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2000. Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: form, meaning and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Barlow, Michael, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Barnden, John. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barr, Dale J., and Keysar, Boaz. 2004. Making sense of how we make sense: the paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston, H. and Katz, A. (eds.), Figurative language processing: social and cultural influences, 21–41. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660.Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 617–45.Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2009. Simulation, situated conceptualization and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 1281–89.Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W., and Wiemer-Hastings, Katja. 2005. Situating abstract concepts. In Pecher, D. and Zwaan, R. (eds.), Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought, 129–61. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barth, Danielle, and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2014. A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2, 1–58.Google Scholar

Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932 [1967]. Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camioni, L., and Volterra, V.. 1979. The emergence of symbols: cognition and communication in infancy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Thal, D., Trauner, D., Fenson, J., Aram, D., Eisele, J., and Nass, R.. 1997. From first words to grammar in children with focal brain injury. Developmental Neuropsychology 13, 275–343.Google Scholar

Bates, E., Reilly, J., Wulfeck, B., Dronkers, N., Opei, M., Fenson, J., et al. 2001. Differential effects of unilateral lesions on language production in children and adults. Brain and Language 79, 223–65.Google Scholar

Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linkstok Press.Google Scholar

Baudouin de Courtenay, . 1972. An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations. In Stankiewicz, Edward (ed.), A Baudouin de Courtenay anthology: the beginnings of Structural Linguistics, 144–213. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bavelas, Janet B. 2005. The two solitudes: reconciling social psychology and social interaction. In Fitch, K. L. and Sanders, R. E. (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, 179–200. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Bavelas, Jane B., Coates, Linda, and Johnson, Trudy. 2002. Listener responses as a collaborative process: the role of gaze. International Communication Association 52, 566–80.Google Scholar

Bavelas, Janet B., Chovil, Nicole, Lawrie, Douglas A., and Wade, Allan. 1992. Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes 15, 469–89.Google Scholar

Bavelas, Janet B., Gerwing, Jennifer, Sutton, Chantelle, and Prevost, Danielle. 2008. Gesturing on the telephone: independent effects of dialogue and visibility. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2), 495–520.Google Scholar

Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Jezzard, P., Clark, V., Karni, A., Lalwani, A., et al. 1998. Hemispheric specialization for English and ASL: left invariance‐right variability. Neuroreport 9(7), 1537–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beattie, Geoffrey, and Shovelton, Heather. 2002. An experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative power. British Journal of Psychology 93(2), 179–92.Google Scholar

Beaudoin-Ryan, Leanne, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2014. Teaching moral reasoning through gesture. Developmental Science 17(6), 984–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bechtel, William, and Abrahamsen, Adele. 2002. Connectionism and the mind: parallel processing, dynamics, and evolution in networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(3), 229–71.Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., et al. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: position paper. Language Learning 59, 1–26.Google Scholar

Beeke, Suzanne, Maxim, Jane, and Wilkinson, Ray. 2007. Using conversation analysis to assess and treat people with aphasia. Seminars in Speech and Language 28(2), 136–47.Google Scholar

Beekhuizen, Barend, Bod, Rens, and Zuidema, Willem. 2013. Three design principles of language: the search for parsimony. Language and Speech 56, 265–90.Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike. 2006. The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beilock, Sian L., and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2010. Gesture changes thought by grounding it in action. Psychological Science 21(11), 1605–10.Google Scholar

Bell, Alan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, Gregory, Michelle, and Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2), 1001–24.Google Scholar

Bencini, Giulia M. L. 2013. Psycholinguistics. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 379–96. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bencini, Giulia M. L., and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 640–51.Google Scholar

Bencini, Giulia M. L., and Valian, Virginia. 2008. Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: evidence from comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 97–113.Google Scholar

Benczes, Réka, Barcelona, Antonio, and de Mendoza, Francisco Ruiz (eds.). 2011. Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bender, Andrea, Beller, Sieghard, and Bennardo, Giovanni. 2010. Temporal frames of reference: conceptual analysis and empirical evidence from German, English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan. Journal of Cognition and Culture 10, 283–307.Google Scholar

Bennett, Jonathan. 2003. A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Berber-Sardinha, Tony. 2010. A program for finding metaphor candidates in corpora. The Especialist (PUCSP) 31, 49–68.Google Scholar

Beréndi, Marta, Csábi, Szilvia, and Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. Using conceptual metaphors and metonymies in vocabulary teaching. In Boers, Frank and Lindstromberg, Seth (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, 65–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Berez, Andrea L., and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2010. Correlates to middle marking in Dena’ina iterative verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 76(1), 145–65.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2003. Towards morphology and agreement in Embodied Construction Grammar. www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen/papers/ECGmorph.pdf.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80(2), 290–311.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2007. Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, and Spivey, Michael J. (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics, 277–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2012. Louder than words: the new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin, and Chang, Nancy C.. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Fried, Mirjam (eds.), Construction grammars: cognitive and cross-language dimensions, 147–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin, and Chang, Nancy C.. 2013. Embodied construction grammar. In Hoffman, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 168–90. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin, and Chan Lau, T. T.. 2012. Writing direction affects how people map space onto time. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bergen, Benjamin, and Feldman, Jerome. 2008. Embodied concept learning. In Calvo, Paco and Gomila, Toni (eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach, 313–31. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin, and Plauché, Madelaine. 2001. Voilà voilà: extensions of deictic constructions in French. In Cienki, Alan, Luka, Barbara, and Smith, Michael (eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure, 238–49. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bergmann, Kirsten, and Kopp, Stefan. 2012. Gestural alignment in natural dialogue. In Cooper, R. P., Peebles, D., and Miyake, N. (eds.). Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012), 1326–31. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Bergmann, Till, and Matlock, Teenie. In prep. Fictive motion in the wild: discourse data from the TV News Archive in the wild.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2008. Shall and shan’t in Contemporary English. In Trousdale, Graeme and Gisbourne, Nick (eds.), Constructional explanations in English grammar, 113–44. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2010. Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: a Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics 14(2), 217–38.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2012a. Construction Grammar. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English historical linguistics, 1631–46. Vol 2. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2012b. The uniformitarian principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Blackwell handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–98. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander, and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander, and Diewald, Gabriele. 2009. Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander, and Pentrel, Meike. 2015. Ælc þara þe þas min word gehierþ and þa wyrcþ…: Psycholinguistic perspectives on early English. In Adams, Michael, Fulk, Robert D., and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), Studies in the history of the Englishl VI: Evidence and method in histories of English, 249–78. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word-Journal of the International Linguistic Association 14(2–3), 150–77.Google Scholar

Berlin, Brent, and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Berman, Ruth, and Slobin, Dan. 1994. Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Bernolet, Sarah, and Colleman, Timothy. In prep. Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In Yoon, Jiyoung and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bertoldi, Anderson, and de Oliveira Chishman, Rove Luize. 2011. Developing a frame-based lexicon for the Brazilian legal language: the case of the Criminal_Process frame. AICOL, 256–70.Google Scholar

Beukeboom, Camiel J., Finkenauer, Catrin, and, Wigboldus, Daniël H. J.. 2010. The negation bias: when negations signal stereotypic expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(6), 978–92.Google Scholar

Bex, Tony, Burke, Michael, and Stockwell, Peter. 2000. Contextualized stylistics: in honour of Peter Verdonk. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1994. An analytical framework for register studies. In Biber, Douglas and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 31–56. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, and Finegan, Edward. 1994. Introduction: situating register in sociolinguistics. In Biber, Douglas and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 3–12. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bienfait, Frits, and van Beek, Walter E. A.. 2001. Right and left as political categories: an exercise in ‘not-so-primitive’ classification. Anthropos 96, 169–78.Google Scholar

Biernacka, Eva. 2013. The role of metonymy in political discourse. PhD dissertation. Open University, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar

Binder, Jeffrey R., and Desai, Rutvik H.. 2011. The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in cognitive sciences 15(11), 527–36.Google Scholar

Binder, Jeffery R., Desai, Rutvik H., Graves, William W., and Conant, Lisa L.. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 19(12), 2767–96.Google Scholar

Bitzer, Lloyd. 1969. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Blank, I., Balewski, Z., Mahowald, K., and Fedorenko, E.. 2016. Syntactic processing is distributed across the language system. NeuroImage 127, 307–23.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.Google Scholar

Bleys, Joris, Stadler, Kevin, and De Beule, Joachim. 2011. Search in linguistic processing. In Steels, Luc (ed.), Design patterns in fluid construction grammar, 149–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Blomberg, Johan. 2015. The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4), 657–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blomberg, Johan and Zlatev, Jordan. 2014. Actual and non-actual motion: why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 13(3), 395–418.Google Scholar

Blomberg, Johan and Zlatev, Jordan. 2015. Non-actual motion: phenomenological analysis and linguistic evidence. Cognitive Processing 16, 153–57.Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan. 2014. From mobility to complexity in sociolinguistic theory and method. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 103, 1–24.Google Scholar

Blommaert, Jan, and Rampton, Ben. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13, 1–21.Google Scholar

Bloom, Paul. 2000. How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Blumberg, Mark S. 2006. Basic instinct: the genesis of behavior. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Sheila, Blumstein, and Amso, Dima. 2013. Dynamic functional organization of language: insights from functional neuroimaging. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(1), 44–48.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2001. Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, 64–73. Lancaster University UCREL.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2002. Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. In Rodríguez, M. González and Araujo, C. Paz Suárez (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Vol. IV, 1364–71, Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2003a. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2003b. A lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. In Carmichael, L., Huang, C.-H., and Samiian, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference in Linguistics. Vol. 13, 27–42.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2005a. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: a reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81(2), 448–64.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2005b. From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In Langer, S. and Schnorbusch, D. (eds.), Semantik im Lexikon, 129–60. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2005c. Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography 18(4), 445–78.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2006. A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In Steiner, Petra, Boas, Hans C., and Schierholz, Stefan (eds.), Contrastive studies and valency: studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, 119–49. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2008a. Resolving Form-meaning Discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In Leino, J. (ed.), Constructional Reorganization, 11–36. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2008b. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 113–44.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2008c. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. In Acevedo, E. Sosa and Rodríguez, F. J. Cortés (eds.), Grammar, Constructions, and Interfaces. Special issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57, 17–48.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. (ed.). 2009. Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2010a. Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24, 54–82.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2010b. Comparing constructions across languages. In Boas, H. C. (ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, 1–20. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. (ed.). 2010c. Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2011a. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In Engelberg, Stefan, Holler, Anke, and Proost, Kristel (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 37–69. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2011b. A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations with build-verbs. In Medina, P. Guerrero (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English, 207–34. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2011c. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6), 1271–303.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2013a. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 233–52. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2013b. Wie viel Wissen steckt in Wörterbüchern? Eine frame-semantische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 57, 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2013c. Frame Semantics and translation. In Rojo, A. and Ibarretxte-Antunano, I. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Translation, 125–58. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2014. Zur Architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten Grammatik des Deutschen. In Ziem, A. and Lasch, A. (eds.), Grammatik als Inventar von Konstruktionen? Sprachliches Wissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2016. Frames and constructions for the study of oral poetics. In Cánovas, C. Pagán and Antović, M. (eds.), Oral Poetics and Cognitive Science, 99–124. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C., and Dux, Ryan. 2013. Semantic frames for foreign language education: towards a German frame-based dictionary. Veridas On-line. Special Issue on Frame Semantics and its Technological Applications 82–100.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C., and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.). 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C., Dux, Ryan, and Ziem, Alexander. 2016. Frames and constructions in an online learner’s dictionary of German. In De Knop, S. and Gilquin, G. (eds.), Applied Construction Grammar, 303–326. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn. 1986a. Meaning, sound and syntax: lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 12, 575–86.Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn. 1986b. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn, and Griffin, Zenzi. 2000. The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129, 177–92.Google Scholar

Bod, Rens. 2000. The storage vs. computation of three-word sentences. Paper presented at AMLaP-2000.Google Scholar

Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie. 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Boers, Frank. 2000a. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21, 553–71.Google Scholar

Boers, Frank. 2000b. Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes 19, 137–47.Google Scholar

Boers, Frank. 2011. Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: an assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9, 227–61.Google Scholar

Boers, Frank. 2013. Cognitive Linguistic approaches to second language vocabulary: assessment and integration. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies 46(2), 208–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boers, Frank, and Lindstromberg, Seth (eds.). 2008a. Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Boers, Frank, and Lindstromberg, Seth. 2008b. From empirical findings to pedagogical practice. In Boers, Frank and Lindstromberg, Seth (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, 375–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Boers, Frank, Lindstromberg, Seth, Littlemore, Jeannette, Stengers, Hélène, and Eyckmans, June. 2008. Variables in the mnemonic effectiveness of pictorial elucidation. In Boers, Frank and Lindstromberg, Seth (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, 65–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2010. The language-specificity of conceptual structure: path, fictive motion, and time relations. In Malt, Barbara and Wolff, Philip (eds.), Words and the mind: how words capture human experience, 111–37. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1949. The sign is not arbitrary. Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo (= Thesaurus) 5, 52–62.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1985. The inherent iconism of intonation. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 97–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boogaart, Ronny. 2009. Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: the case of modal verbs. In Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 213–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boogaart, Ronny, and Fortuin, Egbert. 2016. Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammar(s). In Van der Auwera, Johan and Nuyts, Jan (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 514–34. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy, and Rutten, Gijsbert. 2014. Constructions all the way everywhere: four new directions in constructionist research. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy, and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 1–14. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2009. Lexical integrity as a morphological universal, a constructionist view. In Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elizabeta, and Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of language today, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in construction grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 255–73. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2014. Language use and the architecture of grammar. Suvremena lingvistika (Contemporary linguistics) 40, 192–212.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2015. The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: schema unification and second order schemas. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20, 285–314.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2016. Inheritance and motivation in construction morphology. In Gisborne, Nik and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Default inheritance, n. pag. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Audring, Jenny. 2016. Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science. doi:10.1111/cogs.12323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Audring, Jenny. In prep. Category change in construction morphology. In Van Goethem, Kristel, Norde, Muriel, Coussé, Evie, and Vanderbauwhede, Gudrun (eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Hüning, Matthias. 2014. Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy, and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 77–105. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Masini, Francesca. 2015. The role of second order schemas in word formation. In Bauer, Laurie, Kőrtvélyessy, Livia, and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Semantics of complex words, 47–66. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Borin, Lars, Dannélls, Dana, Forsberg, Markus, Gronostaj, Maria Toporowska, and Kokkinakis, Dimitrios. 2009. Thinking green: toward Swedish FrameNet+. In FrameNet Masterclass and Workshop, n. pag. Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.Google Scholar

Borin, Lars, Dannélls, Dana, Forsberg, Markus, Gronostaj, Maria Toporowska, and Kokkinakis, Dimitrios. 2010. The past meets the present in the Swedish FrameNet++. https://svn.spraakdata.gu.se/sb/fnplusplus/pub/SweFN_Euralex_extended.pdf.Google Scholar

Borkent, Mike. 2010. Illusions of simplicity: a cognitive approach to visual poetry. English Text Construction 3(2), 145–64.Google Scholar

Borkent, Mike, Dancygier, Barbara, and Hinnell, Jennifer (eds.). 2013. Language and the creative mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera, and Gaby, Alice. 2010. Remembrance of times East: absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian Aboriginal Community. Psychological Science 21(11), 1635–39.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera, and Ramscar, Michael. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13, 185–88.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera, Fuhrman, Orly, and McCormick, Kelly. 2011. Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition 118(2), 123–29.Google Scholar

Boroditsky, Lera, Gaby, Alice, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2007. Time in space. In Majid, A. (ed.), Field manual volume 10, 59–80. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Borsley, Robert D. 2004. An approach to English comparative correlatives. In Müller, Stephan (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, 70–92. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Borsley, Robert D. 2006. Syntactic and lexical approaches to unbounded dependencies. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 49, 31–57.Google Scholar

Borsley, Robert D. 2007. Hang on again! Are we ‘on the right track’? Martin Atkinson the minimalist muse. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 53, 43–70.Google Scholar

Bottini, Roberto. 2011. An interdisciplinary study of time in language and mind. PhD dissertation. Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Italy.Google Scholar

Bottini, Roberto, and Casasanto, Daniel. 2010. Implicit spatial length modulates time estimates, but not vice versa. In Ohlsson, Stellan and Catrambone, Richard (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1348–53. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Bottini, Roberto, and Casasanto, Daniel. 2013. Space and time in the child’s mind: metaphoric or ATOMic? Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–9.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bouveret, Myriam. 2012. GIVE frames and constructions in French. In Bouveret, M. and Legallois, D. (eds.), Constructions in French, 99–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bowdle, Brian F., and Gentner, Deirdre. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112(1), 193–216.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1982. Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. R. (eds.), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 319–46. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1988. The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: how do children avoid constructing an overgeneral grammar? In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 145–76. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa, and Pederson, Eric. 1992. Topological relations picture series. In Levinson, Stephen C. (ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2: November 1992, 51. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Boyd, William. 2009. Ordinary thunderstorms. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Boye, Kasper, and Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88, 1–44.Google Scholar

Bradlow, Ann R., Nygaard, Lynne, and Pisoni, David. 1999. Effects of talker, rate and amplitude variation on recognition memory. Perception and Psychophysics 61, 206–19.Google Scholar

Braine, Martin D., and Brooks, Patricia J.. 1995. Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In Tomasello, Michael and Merriman, William E. (eds.), Beyond names for things: young children’s acquisition of verbs, 352–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Brandt, Line. 2008. A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In Oakley, Todd and Hougaard, Anders (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 109–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brandt, Line. 2013. The communicative mind: a linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

Brandt, Line, and Brandt, Per Aage. 2005. Making sense of a blend. A cognitive semiotics approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3, 216–49.Google Scholar

Brandt, Line, and Pascual, Esther. 2016. ‘Say yes hello to this ad’: the persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing. In Pascual, Esther and Sandler, Sergeiy (eds.), The conversation frame: forms and functions of fictive interaction, 303–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brandt, Per Aage. 2004. Spaces, domains, and meaning: essays in cognitive semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Brandt, Silke, , E., Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena, and Tomasello, Michael. 2009. The discourse bases of relativization: an investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3), 539–70.Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly, Pickering, Martin J., and Cleland, Alexandra A.. 2000. Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition 75, 13–25.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Comparative and equative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. Poster presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts, and at the 9th Semfest, Stanford, California.Google Scholar

Bråten, Stein. 2006. Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brdar, Mario, and Brdar-Szabó, Rita. 2009. The (non) metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian and Croatian. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe, Thornburg, Linda, and Barcelona, Antonio (eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar, 229–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brdar, Mario, Gries, Stephan, and Fuchs, Milena Zic (eds.). 2011. Cognitive linguistics: convergence and expansion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brdar-Szabó, Rita, and Brdar, Mario. 2011. What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In Benczes, Réka, Barcelona, Antonio, and de Mendoza, Francisco Ruiz (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view, 217–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte, and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2012. Grammaticalization. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English historical linguistics: vol. 2, 1558–76. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brennan, Susan E., and Clark, Herbert H.. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 1482–93.Google Scholar

Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bressler, Steven L. and Menon, Vinod. 2010 Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(6), 277–90.Google Scholar

Brezina, Vaclav, McEnery, Tony, and Wattam, Stephen. 2015. Collocations in context: a new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2), 139–73.Google Scholar

Brindöpke, Christel, Häger, J., Johanntokrax, Michaela, Pahde, Arno, Schwalbe, Michael, and Wrede, Britta. 1995. Darf ich Dich Marvin nennen? Instruktionsdialoge in einem Wizard-of-Oz Szenario: Szenario-design und auswertung. Universität Bielefeld: SFB-Report ‘Situierte künstliche Kommunikatoren’ 95/16.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel. 2012. Lexicalization. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English historical linguistics: vol. 2, 1577–98. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brisard, Frank. 2006. Logic, subjectivity and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. In Anthanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas, and Cornillie, Bert (eds.) Subjectification: various paths to subjectivity, 41–74. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Broaders, Sarah C., Cook, Susan Wagner, Mitchell, Zachary, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2007. Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(4), 539–50.Google Scholar

Broccias, Cristiano. 2013. Cognitive grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 191–210. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert. 2008. Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humour. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12), 2027–61.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert. 2010. Bedeutungskonstitution in verbalem Humor: ein kognitiv-linguistischer und diskurssemantischer Ansatz. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert. 2012. Humour and irony in cognitive pragmatics. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Handbook of cognitive pragmatics, vol. 4: cognitive pragmatics, 463–504. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, and Coulson, Seana. 2010. Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: double grounding. Discourse Processes 47(3), 212–36.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, and Feyaerts, Kurt. 2005. Headlines and cartoons in the economic press: double grounding as a discourse supportive strategy. In Erreygers, Guido and Jacobs, Geert (eds.), Language, communication and the economy, 73–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, and Oben, Bert. 2013. Resonating humour: a corpus-based approach to creative parallelism in discourse. In Feyaerts, Kurt, Veale, Tony, and Forceville, Charles (eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: a multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon, 181–204. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, and Oben, Bert. 2015. InSight Interaction: a multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation 49, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brône, Geert, and Vandaele, Jeroen (eds.). 2009. Cognitive poetics: goals, gains, and gaps. New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, and Zima, Elisabeth. 2014. Towards a dialogic construction grammar: a corpus-based approach to ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3), 457–95.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, Feyaerts, Kurt, and Veale, Tony (eds.). 2015. Cognitive linguistic humor research: current trends and new developments. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, Oben, Bert, and Feyaerts, Kurt. 2017. Eye gaze and viewpoint in multimodal interaction management. Special issue on Viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication. Dancygier, Barbara and Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics 28(3).Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia, and Tomasello, Michael. 1999a. Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35, 29–44.Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia, and Tomasello, Michael. 1999b. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75, 720–38.Google Scholar

Brooks, Patricia, Tomasello, Michael, Dodson, Kelly, and Lewis, Lawrence B.. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70, 1325–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brown, Amanda, and Chen, Jidong. 2013. Construal of manner in speech and gesture in Mandarin, English, and Japanese. Cognitive Linguistics 24(4), 605–31.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope 2012. Time and space in Tzeltal: Is the future uphill? Frontiers in Psychology 3, 212.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brugman, Claudia. 1983. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages 4, 235–90.Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome S. 1983. Child’s talk: learning to use language. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome S. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brunyé, Tad T., Gardony, Aaron, Mahoney, Caroline R., and Taylor, Holly A.. 2012. Body-specific representations of spatial location. Cognition 23(2), 229–39.Google Scholar

Brunyé, Tad T., Ditman, Tali, Mahoney, Caroline R., Augustyn, Jason S., and Taylor, Holly A.. 2009. When you and I share perspectives: pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science 20(1), 27–32.Google Scholar

Büchel, Christian, Price, Cathy, Frackowiak, R. S., and Friston, Karl. 1998. Different activation patterns in the visual cortex of late and congenitally blind subjects. Brain 121, 409–19.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary. 2010. White kids: language and white youth identities. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, Mary, and Hall, Kira. 2005. Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7, 585–614.Google Scholar

Budwig, Nancy, Narasimhan, Bhuvana, and Srivastava, Smita. 2006. Interim solutions: the acquisition of early verb constructions in Hindi. In Clark, Eve V. and Kelly, Barbara F. (eds.), Constructions in acquisition, 163–83. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Buescher, Kimberly, and Strauss, Susan. In prep. Conceptual frameworks and L2 pedagogy: the case of French prepositions. In Tyler, Andrea, Ortega, Lourdes, Uno, Mariko, and Park, Hae In (eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction: researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Burchardt, Aljoscha, Erk, Katrin, Frank, Anette, Kowalski, Andrea, Padó, Sebastian, and Pinkal, Manfred. 2009. Using FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: annotation, representation, and automation. In Boas, Hans C. (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets: methods and applications, 209–44. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Burling, Robbins, 1966. The metrics of children’s verse: a cross-linguistic study, American Anthropologist 68(6), 1418–41.Google Scholar

Burton, H, Snyder, A. Z., Conturo, T. E., Akbudak, E., Ollinger, J. M., and Raichle, M. E.. 2002a. Adaptive changes in early and late blind: a fMRI study of Braille reading. Journal of Neurophysiology 87, 589–611.Google Scholar

Burton, H., Snyder, A. Z., Diamond, J. B., and Raichle, M. E.. 2002b. Adaptive changes in early and late blind: a FMRI study of verb generation to heard nouns. Journal of Neurophysiology 88(6), 3359–71.Google Scholar

Busse, Dietrich. 2012. Frame-Semantik: Ein Kompendium. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Butler, Christopher. 1985. Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Butterworth, George, and Grover, Lesley. 1990. Joint visual attention, manual pointing, and preverbal communication in human infancy. In Jeannerod, M. (ed.), Attention and performance, vol. XIII, motor representation and control, 605–24. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5), 425–55.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: evidence from lexical diffusion. Usage-based models of language, 65–85.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 711–33.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37, 575–96.Google Scholar

Bylund, Emanuel. 2011. Segmentation and temporal structuring of events in early Spanish-Swedish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(1), 56–84.Google Scholar

Caballero, Rosario. 2006. Re-viewing space: figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cabeza, Roberto. 2002. Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in older adults: the HAROLD model. Psychology and Aging 17(1), 85.Google Scholar

Cabeza, Roberto, and Nyberg, Lars. 2000. Imaging cognition II: an empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12(1), 1–47.Google Scholar

Cadierno, Teresa. 2004. Expressing motion events in a second language: a cognitive typological approach. In Achard, Michel and Neimeier, Suzanne (eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 13–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Cadierno, Teresa. 2008. Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In Robinson, Peter and Ellis, Nick C. (eds.) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 239–75. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cadierno, Teresa, and Eskildsen, Søren Wind. 2016. In Cadierno, Teresa and Eskildsen, Søren Wind (eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning, 121–223. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Cadierno, Teresa, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, and Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto. 2016. Semantic categorization of placement verbs in L1 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning 66(1), 191–223.Google Scholar

Cai, Zhenguang G., and Connell, Louise. 2015. Space-time interdependence: evidence against asymmetric mapping between time and space. Cognition 136, 268–81.Google Scholar

Calbris, Genevieve. 1990. The semiotics of French gesture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Caldwell-Harris, Catherine, Berant, Jonathan, and Edelman, Shimon. 2012. Measuring mental entrenchment of phrases with perceptual identification, familiarity ratings, and corpus frequency statistics. In Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Frequency effects in language representation, 165–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne. 2011. Metaphor and reconciliation: the discourse dynamics of empathy in post–conflict conversations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne, and Deignan, Alice. 2003. Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 18(3), 149–60.Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne, and Deignan, Alice. 2006. The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 671–90.Google Scholar

Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena, and Theakston, Anna. 2007. What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child Language 34(2), 251–82.Google Scholar

Cantrall, William R. 1974. Viewpoint, reflexives, and the nature of noun phrases. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2011. The the… the… construction: meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1), 99–117.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert, Shtyrov, Yury, and Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115(3), 189–201.Google Scholar

Carden, Guy, and Dieterich, Thomas G.. 1980. Introspection, observation and experiment: an example where experiment pays off. Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association 2, 583–97.Google Scholar

Cardin, Velia, Orfanidou, Eleni, Rönnberg, Jerker, Capek, Cheryl M., Rudner, Mary, and Woll, Bencie. 2013. Dissociating cognitive and sensory neural plasticity in human superior temporal cortex. Nature Communications 4, 1473.Google Scholar

Carlson, Richard A., Avraamides, Marios N., Cary, Melanie, and Strasberg, Stephen. 2007. What do the hands externalize in simple arithmetic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(4), 747–56.Google Scholar

Caron-Pargue, Josiane and Caron, Jean. 1991. Psychopragmatics vs. sociopragmatics: the function of pragmatic markers in thinking-aloud protocols. In Verschueren, Jef (ed.), Pragmatics at issue: selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, 29–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carpenter, Malinda, Akhtar, Nameera, and Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Fourteen-through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development 21(2), 315–30.Google Scholar

Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald. 2004. Language and creativity, the art of common talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Casad, Eugene. 1982. Cora locationals and structured imagery. PhD dissertation. University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar

Casad, Eugene, and Langacker, Ronald W.. 1985. ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ in Cora grammar. IJAL 51, 247–81.Google Scholar

Casad, Eugene, and Palmer, Gary (eds.). 2003. Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo-European languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2008a. Similarity and proximity: when does close in space mean close in mind? Memory and Cognition 36, 1047–56.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2008b. Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning 58(1), 63–79.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2009. Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(3), 351–67.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2010. Space for thinking. In Evans, Vyvyan and Chilton, Paul (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: state of the art and new directions, 453–78. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2013. Experiential origins of mental metaphors: language, culture, and the body. In Landau, Mark J., Robinson, Michael D., and Meier, Brian P. (eds.), The power of metaphor: examining its influence on social life, 249–68. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2014. Development of metaphorical thinking: the role of language. In Borkent, Mike, Dancygier, Barbara, and Hinnel, Jennifer (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 3–18. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2016a. A shared mechanism of linguistic, cultural, and bodily relativity. Language Learning 66(3), 714–30.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel. 2016b. Relationships between space, time, and number: insights from language acquisition. Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Granada, Spain.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Boroditsky, Lera. 2008. Time in the mind: using space to think about time. Cognition 106(2), 579–93.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Bottini, Roberto. 2014. Mirror reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(2), 473–79.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Chrysikou, Evangelia G.. 2011. When left is ‘right’: motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science 22(4), 419–22.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Dijkstra, Katinka. 2010. Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition 115, 179–85.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Gijssels, Tom. 2015. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Linguistics Vanguard 1(1), 327–37.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Henetz, Tania. 2012. Handedness shapes children’s abstract concepts. Cognitive Science 36 359–72.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Jasmin, Kyle. 2010. Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLoS ONE 5(7), e11805.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, and Jasmin, Kyle. 2012. The hands of time: temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics 23(4), 643–74.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, Fotakopoulou, Olga, and Boroditsky, Lera. 2010. Space and time in the child’s mind: evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. Cognitive Science 34, 387–405.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel, Boroditsky, Lera, Phillips, Webb, Greene, Jesse, Goswami, Shima, Bocanegra-Thiel, Simon, et al. 2004. How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish. In Forbus, Kenneth, Gentner, Dedre, and Regier, Terry (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 186–91. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Casenhiser, Devin, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2005. Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6), 500–08.Google Scholar

Cassell, Justine, McNeill, David, and McCullough, Karl-Erik. 1998. Speech-gesture mismatches: evidence for one underlying representation of linguistic and nonlinguistic information. Pragmatics and Cognition 7(1), 1–33.Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2013. Interaction in Early Modern news discourse: the case of English witchcraft pamphlets and their prefaces (1566–1621). Text and Talk 33(2), 167–88.Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2014. Dramatic monologues: the grammaticalization of speaking roles in courtroom opening statements. Pragmatics 24(4), 757–84.Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2015. Communicating with silent addressees: engagement features in the opening statement. Language and Communication 43, 35–46.Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2016. Persuading and arguing with the reader: fictive interaction strategies in witchcraft pamphlet prefaces (1566–1621). In Pascual, Esther and Sandler, Sergeiy (eds.), The conversation frame: forms and functions of fictive interaction, 113–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1962. Phonetics, semantics, and language. Language 38, 335–44.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1965. Meaning in language. American Anthropologist 67 (5), 23–36.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1967. Language as symbolization. Language 43, 57–91.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4, 109–127.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1970a. Meaning and the structure of language. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1970b. A semantically based sketch of Onondaga. IJAL Memoir 25, supplement to vol. 36(2).Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 2002. Searching for meaning in language: a memoir. Historiographia Linguistica 29, 245–61.Google Scholar

Chakravarty, Auditi, and Boehme, Bonnie. 2004. Grammar and usage for better writing. New York: Amsco School Publications.Google Scholar

Chambers, Jack. 2001. Vernacular universals. In Fontana, Josep M., McNally, Louise, Turell, M. Teresa, and Vallduví, Enric (eds.), ICLaVE 1: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, 52–60. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar

Chan, Angel, Lieven, Elena, and Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Children’s understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: cross-linguistic comparison between Cantonese, German and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2), 267–300.Google Scholar

Chan, Ting Ting and Bergen, Benjamin. 2005. Writing direction influences spatial cognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Chang, Franklin. 2002. Symbolically speaking: a connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science 26, 609–51.Google Scholar

Chang, Franklin, Bock, J. Kathryn, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90, 29–49.Google Scholar

Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary S., Bock, J. Kathryn, and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: a comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29, 217–29.Google Scholar

Chang, Nancy. 2008. Constructing grammar: a computational model of the emergence of early constructions. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2001. Blood sweat and tears: a corpus based cognitive analysis of ‘blood’ in English phraseology. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 30(2), 273–87.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2003. Speaking with forked tongue: a comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 289–310.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2012. Shattering the bell jar: metaphor, gender and depression. Metaphor and Symbol 27(3), 199–216.Google Scholar

Chen, Jenn-Yeu. 2007. Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky 2001. Cognition 104, 427–36.Google Scholar

Chenu, Florence, and Jisa, Harriet. 2006. Caused motion constructions and semantic generality in early acquisition of French. In Clark, Eve V. and Kelly, Barbara F. (eds.), Constructions in acquisition, 233–61. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Childers, Jane B., and Tomasello, Michael. 2001. Two-year-olds learn novel nouns, verbs, and conventional actions from massed or distributed exposures. Developmental Psychology 37(6), 739–48.Google Scholar

Chilton, Paul. 2013. Frames of reference and the linguistic conceptualization of time: present and future. In Jaszczolt, K. M. and de Saussure, L. (eds.), Time: language, cognition, and reality, 236–58. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1959. A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language 35(1), 26–58.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000a. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000b. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Language and other cognitive systems: what is special about language? Language Learning and Development 7(4), 263–78.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1965. Some controversial issues in phonological theory, Journal of Linguistics 1, 97–138.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick. 2015. The now-or-never bottleneck: a fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38, 1–52.Google Scholar

Chu, Mingyuan, and Kita, Sotaro. 2011. The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140(1), 102–16.Google Scholar

Chui, Kawai. 2011. Conceptual metaphors in gesture. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3), 437–58.Google Scholar

Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2008. Cross-linguistic comparison of the MARKET metaphors. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2), 141–75.Google Scholar

Church, R. Breckinridge, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 1986. The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition 23, 43–71.Google Scholar

Church, R. Breckinridge, Ayman-Nolley, Saba, and Mahootian, Shahrzad. 2004. The role of gesture in bilingual education: does gesture enhance learning? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7(4), 303–19.Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphorical expressions. In Koenig, Jean-Pierre (ed.), Discourse and cognition: bridging the gap, 189–204. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 2013. Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2), 417–32.Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7(4), 499–514.Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan, and Giansante, Gianluca. 2014. Conversational framing in televised political discourse: a comparison from the 2008 elections in the United States and Italy. Journal of Language and Politics 13(2), 255–88.Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan, and Müller, Cornelia (eds.). 2008a. Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan, and Müller, Cornelia (eds.). 2008b. Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 483–501. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Citron, Francesca, and Goldberg, Adele. 2014. Social context modulates the effect of hot temperature on perceived interpersonal warmth: a study of embodied metaphors. Language and Cognition 6, 1–11.Google Scholar

Clancy, Steven J. 2006. The topology of Slavic case: semantic maps and multidimensional scaling. Glossos 7, 1–28.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1971. On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10(3), 266–75.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1987. The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1997. Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition. Cognition 64(1), 1–37.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 2003. First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 2009. First language acquisition, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve. V., and Clark, Herbert H. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4), 767–811.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Moore, Timothy (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 27–63. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar