Article published in:
Verb Classes and Aspect
Edited by Elisa Barrajón López, José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia and Susana Rodríguez Rosique
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 9] 2015
► pp. 153184
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
1999 “Perceptual Symbol Systems.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 507–569.Google Scholar
2002 “Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action.” In Representation, Memory and Development: Essays in Honor of Jean Mandler, Nancy L. Stein, Patricia J. Bauer, and M. Rabiowitz (eds), 1–15. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Squartini, Mario
1995 “An attempt at defining the class of ‘gradual completion’ verbs.” In Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Vol. 1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives, P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, M. Squartini (eds), 11–26. Torino: Roseberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio
2004 (dir.). REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio and Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier
2009Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1970Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole
1996 “Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish.” In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, Eugene Casad (ed.), 249–318. New York / Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 “Las cópulas ser y estar. Categorización frente a deixis.” Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Volumen Monográfico: Estudios cognoscitivos del español. R. Maldonado (ed.), 239–280.Google Scholar
2006Ya: Aclaración cognitiva de su uso y función. Revista Española de Lingüística 36: 43–71.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole and Maldonado, Ricardo
2011 “Spanish ya. A conceptual pragmatic anchor.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 73–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dewell, Robert B.
2007 “Moving over. The role of systematic semantic processes in defining individual lexemes.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5: 271–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985Mental Spaces. Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
1997Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark
2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Atkins, B.T.S.
1992 “Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and its neighbors.” In Frames, Fields and Contrasts: new essays in semantics and lexical organization, Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay (eds), 75–102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
García Fernández, Luis
1999 “Los complementos adverbiales temporales. La subordinación temporal.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte (dir.), Chapter 48, 3129–3208. Madrid: Espasa / Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
1990Semantic Structures. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2002Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez Delgado, José Miguel and Martínez Vázquez, Rafael
2011“Verbos de movimiento virtual en griego antiguo.” EmErita, Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clásica LXXIX (2): 277–300.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning. Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark
1989More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1986 “Abstract motion.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 455–471.Google Scholar
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991aConcept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991bFoundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. and Wilkins, David P.
2006Grammars of space: explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maslov, Yuriy S.
(ed.) 1985Contrastive Studies in Verbal Aspect. English translation by J. Forsyth. Heidelberg: J.G. Verlag.Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie
2004a “Fictive motion as cognitive simulation.” Memory & Cognition 32: 1389–1400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b “The conceptual motivation of fictive motion.” In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), 221–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2006 “Depicting fictive motion in drawings.” In Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries, J. Luchenbroers (ed.), 67–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo
1996 “Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs.” Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2): 183–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Méndez Dosuna, Julián
2009 “Movimiento ficticio en griego antiguo: tras las huellas del viajero (in)visible.” REL 39 (1): 5–32.Google Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, Juan C.
2003Semántica y pragmática: Sucesos, papeles temáticos y relaciones sintácticas. Madrid: A. Machado Libros.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yuko
2001Los verbos de movimiento. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
RAE-AALE
2009Nueva Gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rodenbusch, E.
1911„Präsentia in perfektischer Bedeutung.“ IF 28: 252–285.Google Scholar
Rojo, Ana and Valenzuela, Javier
2003 “Fictive Motion in English and Spanish.” International Journal of English Studies 3 (2): 123–149.Google Scholar
2009 “Fictive Motion in Spanish: Travellable, non-travellable and path-related information.” In Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Models, Javier Valenzuela, Ana Rojo and Cristina Soriano (eds), 221–238. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1983 “How language structures space.” In Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, Herbert L. Pick, Jr. and Linda P. Acredolo, 225–282. New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “Path to realization: A typology of event conflation.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 480–519.Google Scholar
1996 “Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’.” In Language and space, Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill Garret (eds), 211–276. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000aToward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000bToward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David
2007Schematicity. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vernay, Henri
1974Essai sur l’organisation de l’espace par divers systèmes linguistiques. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Wallentin, M., Ellegaard Lund, T., Ostergaard, S. Ostergaard, L. and Roepstorff, A.
2005 “Motion verb sentences activate left posterior middle temporal cortex despite static context.” Neuroreport 16 (6): 649–652. CrossrefGoogle Scholar