On the continuous debate about discreteness
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al. Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition , 2004, Cogn. Sci..
[2] C. Fillmore,et al. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone , 1988 .
[3] R. Langacker,et al. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping , 1997 .
[4] G. Lakoff. The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? , 1990 .
[5] Karen Van Hoek,et al. Conceptual Reference Points: A Cognitive Grammar Account of Pronominal Anaphora Constraints. , 1995 .
[6] D. Sandra,et al. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? , 1995 .
[7] Anna Wierzbicka,et al. Cups and mugs: Lexicography and conceptual analysis , 1984 .
[8] R. Langacker. Reference-point constructions , 1993 .
[9] J. Haiman. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias , 1980 .
[10] S. Thompson. “Object complements” and conversation towards a realistic account , 2002 .
[11] Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek , 2005 .
[12] Ronald W. Langacker,et al. Dynamicity In Grammar , 2001 .
[13] Jordan Zlatev,et al. Polysemy or generality? Mu , 2003 .
[14] Ronald W. Langacker,et al. Nouns and Verbs , 1987 .
[15] Ronald W. Langacker. Remarks on nominal grounding , 2004 .
[16] Jens Allwood,et al. MEANING POTENTIALS AND CONTEXT : SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF VARIATION IN MEANING , 2003 .
[17] Jeffrey L. Elman,et al. Finding Structure in Time , 1990, Cogn. Sci..