LEADER 05642nam 2200673 450 001 9910787082603321 005 20230803204719.0 010 $a90-272-6960-2 035 $a(CKB)3710000000230873 035 $a(EBL)1781021 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001333902 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12552700 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001333902 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11393060 035 $a(PQKB)10631404 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1781021 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1781021 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10928374 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL642388 035 $a(OCoLC)890699321 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000230873 100 $a20140916h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aTheory and data in cognitive linguistics /$fedited by Nikolas Gisborne, Willem Hollmann 210 1$aAmsterdam , Netherlands ;$aPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$d©2014 215 $a1 online resource (268 p.) 225 1 $aBenjamins Current Topics,$x1874-0081 ;$vVolume 67 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-322-11137-5 311 $a90-272-4255-0 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and index. 327 $aTheory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Theory and data in cognitive linguistics; Gries; Barðdal et al.; Patten; Trousdale; Gisborne; Cristofaro; Hollmann; Matlock et al.; References; Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics; 1. Introduction; 2. Collostructional analysis: A brief overview; 2.1 Perspective 1: CA and its goals; 2.2 Perspective 2: CA and its mathematics/computation; 2.3 Perspective 3: CA and its results, interpretation, and motivation; 3. Bybee's points of critique 327 $a3.1 Perspective 1: CA and its goals 3.2 Perspective 2: CA and its mathematics/computation; 3.3 Perspective 3: CA and its results, interpretation, and motivation; 3.3.1 The perceived lack of semantics; 3.3.2 The perceived lacks of semantics and discriminatory power; 3.3.3 The absence of cognitive mechanisms underlying CA; 4. Clarifications, repudiations, and responses; 4.1 Perspective 1: CA and its goals; 4.2 Perspective 2: CA and its mathematics/computation; 4.2.1 The issue of the corpus size; 4.2.2 The distribution of pFYE; 4.3 Perspective 3: CA and its results, interpretation, and motivation 327 $a4.3.1 The perceived lacks of semantics 4.3.2 The perceived lacks of semantics and discriminatory power; 4.3.3 The absence of cognitive mechanisms underlying CA; 5. Towards a new empirical perspective and its theoretical implications; 5.1 A cline of co-occurrence complexity and its motivations/implications; 5.1.1 Approach 1: Raw frequencies/percentages; 5.1.2 Approach 2: Association measures; 5.1.3 Approach 3: Full cross-tabulation; 5.1.4 Approach 4: Dispersion of (co-)occurrence; 5.2 Why CA works at all and a brief excursus on Zipf 327 $a5.3 Towards a refined usage-/exemplar-based definition of construction 5.4 Conclusion; References; Reconstructing constructional semantics; 1. Introduction; 2. The Dative Subject Construction; 3. Reconstructing semantics; 4. Comparison of the semantics of the Dative Subject Construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Archaic/Classical Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian, and Old Lithuanian; 5. A reconstruction of the semantics of the Dative Subject Construction in Indo-European; 6. Special characteristics of the Indo-European Dative Subject Construction in the typological landscape; 7. Summary 327 $aReferences Appendix: Narrowly-circumscribed lexical semantic verb classes; The historical development of the it-cleft; 1. Introduction 1; 2. Theoretical assumptions; 2.1 Language structure; 2.2 Language change; 2.3 Interim summary; 3. The object of study; 3.1 An expletive account of it-clefts; 3.2 An extraposition account of it-clefts; 4. Sorting the data; 4.1 Ball's (1991)it-cleft origin story; 4.2 Patten's (forthcoming) it-cleft origin story; 4.3 Handling the OE hit-cleft; 5. Interpreting the data; 5.1 The diachronic development of the English it-cleft 327 $a5.2 Ball (1994) and the mergers of the English it-cleft 330 $aHow do people describe events they have witnessed? What role does linguistic aspect play in this process? To provide answers to these questions, we conducted an experiment on aspectual framing. In our task, people were asked to view videotaped vehicular accidents and to describe what happened (perfective framing) or what was happening (imperfective framing). Our analyses of speech and gesture in retellings show that the form of aspect used in the question differentially influenced the way people conceptualized and described actions. Questions framed with imperfective aspect resulted in more mo 410 0$aBenjamins current topics ;$vVolume 67. 606 $aCognitive grammar$xData processing$vCongresses 606 $aSemantics$xData processing$vCongresses 615 0$aCognitive grammar$xData processing 615 0$aSemantics$xData processing 676 $a415 702 $aGisborne$b Nikolas$f1966- 702 $aHollmann$b Willem 712 02$aSocietas Linguistica Europaea.$bMeeting$d(43rd :$f2010 :$eVilnius, Lithuania) 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910787082603321 996 $aTheory and data in cognitive linguistics$93741444 997 $aUNINA