Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Verbs in Fictive Motion

dc.contributor.authorWaliński, Jacek Tadeusz
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-08T15:14:56Z
dc.date.available2019-01-08T15:14:56Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationWaliński J.T., Verbs in Fictive Motion, WUŁ, Łódź 2018, doi: 10.18778/8142-382-3.pl_PL
dc.identifier.isbn978-83-8142-382-3
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/26383
dc.description.abstractThis book presents a corpus-based study of verbs used in expressions of fictive motion, which refers to the cognitive-linguistic phenomenon of describing material objects incapable of movement in terms of motion over their configuration in space. The study focuses specifically on the category of coextension paths, which are used to describe the form, orientation, or location of a spatially extended object in terms of a path over the object’s extent. The analysis, carried out using the British National Corpus, indicates that in English only a fraction of motion verbs are used consistently to express coextension paths, and that some of them are used for this purpose far more systematically than others. A holographic image of structuring coextension paths that emerges from the linguistic data indicates that whereas directional motion verbs tend to be used in fictive motion to express bounded paths, directions, and routes, verbs of motion manner are employed to specify shapes constituting subjective counterparts of spatial contours of actual motion. Moreover, depending on the particular use and the wider linguistic context, certain coextension path expressions can be interpreted as a result of conceptual blending, which fuses multiple facets of motion via a common communicative platform established dynamically in discourse. From the perspective of the analysis, these interpretations are not mutually irreconcilable. The evocation of a particular conceptualization triggered by the semantic attributes conflated in a verb and its satellites is likely to depend not only on individual comprehension strategies, but also on the degree of cultural-linguistic conventionalization of certain fictive motion patterns established through the processes of language acquisition and social transfer.pl_PL
dc.language.isoenpl_PL
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl_PL
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/*
dc.subjectmotion in languagepl_PL
dc.subjectcognitive linguistic modelspl_PL
dc.subjectfictive motion in languagepl_PL
dc.subjectBritish National Corpuspl_PL
dc.titleVerbs in Fictive Motionpl_PL
dc.typeBookpl_PL
dc.page.number278pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniwersytet Łódzki, Wydział Filologiczny, Instytut Anglistykipl_PL
dc.identifier.eisbn978-83-8142-383-0
dc.referencesAlexander, H. G. (Ed.). (1956). The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence: Together with Extracts from Newton’s Principia and Optiks. Manchester: Manchester University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesAllan, K. (2009). An Inquest into Metaphor Death: Exploring the Loss of Literal Senses of Conceptual Metaphors. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.291pl_PL
dc.referencesAllan, K. (2013). What is Common Ground? In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics (Vol. 2, pp. 285–310). Cham: Springer.pl_PL
dc.referencesAloni, M., & Dekker, P. J. E. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesAltmann, G. T. M. (2004). Language-mediated eye movements in the absence of a visual world: The ‘blank screen paradigm.’ Cognition, 93(2), B79–B87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.005pl_PL
dc.referencesAltmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004pl_PL
dc.referencesAltmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2009). Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye movements and mental representation. Cognition, 111(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.005pl_PL
dc.referencesAmagawa, T. (1997). Subjective Motion in English and Japanese: A Case Study of Run and Hashiru. Tsukuba English Studies, 16, 33–50.pl_PL
dc.referencesAnderson, S. E., & Spivey, M. J. (2009). The enactment of language: Decades of interactions between linguistic and motor processes. Language and Cognition, 1(01), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.005pl_PL
dc.referencesAquinas, St. Thomas. (1269/1999). Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics [written c. 1269]. (R. J. Blackwell, R. J. Spath, W. E. Thirkel, & P. H. Conway, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: Dumb Ox Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesAristotle. (350BC/1995a). On the Soul [written c. 350BC]. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesAristotle. (350BC/1995b). Physics [written c. 350BC]. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesAske, J. (1989). Path Predicates in English and Spanish: A Closer Look. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 1–14). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesAston, G., & Burnard, L. (1998). The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesAthanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B. (Eds.). (2006). Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesAziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1–3), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.012pl_PL
dc.referencesBączkowska, A. (2011). Space, Time & Language: A Cognitive Analysis of English Prepositions. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesBaker, R. K., Pettigrew, T. L., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2014). Infants’ ability to associate motion paths with object kinds. Infant Behavior and Development, 37(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.12.005pl_PL
dc.referencesBallard, K. E. (1960). Leibniz’s Theory of Space and Time. Journal of the History of Ideas, 21(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2707998pl_PL
dc.referencesBarlew, J. (2017). The semantics and pragmatics of perspectival expressions in English and Bulu: The case of deictic motion verbs (Ph.D. Dissertation). Ohio State University, Ohio.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149pl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5–6), 513–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000026pl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639pl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W. (2009a). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319pl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W. (2009b). Situating concepts. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 236–263). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.xpl_PL
dc.referencesBarsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBatki, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Connellan, J., & Ahluwalia, J. (2000). Is there an innate gaze module? Evidence from human neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 23(2), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00037-6pl_PL
dc.referencesBeavers, J. (2008). Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, & M. Schäfer (Eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation (pp. 245–265). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesBeavers, J., & Koontz-Garboden, A. (2012). Manner and Result in the Roots of Verbal Meaning. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(3), 331–369. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00093pl_PL
dc.referencesBeavers, J., Levin, B., & Wei Tham, S. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(02), 331–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990272pl_PL
dc.referencesBedny, M., & Caramazza, A. (2011). Perception, action, and word meanings in the human brain: The case from action verbs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06013.xpl_PL
dc.referencesBehnke, E. A. (2011). Husserl’s Phenomenology of Embodiment. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 21.09.2014 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/husspemb/pl_PL
dc.referencesBennardo, G. (2004). Linguistic untranslatability vs. conceptual nesting of frames of reference. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 102–107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesBenussi, V. (1913). Psychologie der Zeitauffassung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.pl_PL
dc.referencesBergen, B. K. (2012). Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesBergen, B. K. (2016). Embodiment, simulation and meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 142–157). London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesBergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 168–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBergen, B. K., Chan Lau, T.-T., Narayan, S., Stojanovic, D., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Body part representations in verbal semantics. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 969–981. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.969pl_PL
dc.referencesBergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and Linguistic Aspects of Visual Imagery in Sentence Comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 733–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701530748pl_PL
dc.referencesBergson, H. (1922/2002). Duration and Simultaneity [First published in 1922 as Durée et simultanéité]. (L. Jacobson, Trans.). In Henri Bergson: Key Writings. (K. Ansell-Pearson & J. Mullarkey, Eds.). New York: Continuum.pl_PL
dc.referencesBerlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBiber, D. (1993). Representativeness in Corpus Design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243pl_PL
dc.referencesBiber, D., & Reppen, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBiber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBiber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Longman.pl_PL
dc.referencesBinder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where Is the Semantic System? A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of 120 Functional Neuroimaging Studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055pl_PL
dc.referencesBinnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBlake, F. R. (1930). A Semantic Analysis of Case. Language, 6(4), 34. https://doi.org/10.2307/521984pl_PL
dc.referencesBlomberg, J. (2014). Motion in Language and Experience: Actual and Non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai (Ph.D. Dissertation). Lund University, Lund.pl_PL
dc.referencesBlomberg, J. (2015). The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 657–696. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0025pl_PL
dc.referencesBlomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2014). Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-013-9299-xpl_PL
dc.referencesBloom, P., & Keil, F. C. (2001). Thinking Through Language. Mind and Language, 16(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00175pl_PL
dc.referencesBohnemeyer, J. (2003). The Unique Vector Constraint: The Impact of Direction Changes on the Linguistic Segmentation of Motion Events. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 86–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBohnemeyer, J. (2010). The Language-Specificity of Conceptual Structure: Path, Fictive Motion, and Time Relations. In B. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind (pp. 111–137). Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N. J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe-Antunano, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., & Ameka, F. K. (2007). Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language, 83(3), 495–532. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0116pl_PL
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6pl_PL
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L. (2001). Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748pl_PL
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L. (2011). How Language Shapes Thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62pl_PL
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of Times East: Absolute Spatial Representations of Time in an Australian Aboriginal Community. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1635–1639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610386621pl_PL
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00434pl_PL
dc.referencesBowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193pl_PL
dc.referencesBower, G. H., & Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension. Science, 247(4938), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2403694pl_PL
dc.referencesBrandt, L. (2009). Subjectivity in the act of representing: The case for subjective motion and change. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 573–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-009-9123-9pl_PL
dc.referencesBrewer, B., & Pears, J. (1993). Introduction: Frames of reference. In N. Eilan, R. A. McCarthy, & B. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial Representation: Problems in Philosophy and Psychology (pp. 25–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBrezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBritton, A., Setchi, R., & Marsh, A. (2013). Intuitive interaction with multifunctional mobile interfaces. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 25(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2012.11.002pl_PL
dc.referencesBroccias, C., & Hollmann, W. B. (2007). Do we need summary and sequential scanning in (Cognitive) grammar? Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 487–522. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.026pl_PL
dc.referencesBrown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A Study of Japanese Speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(2), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.10170/S0272263108080327pl_PL
dc.referencesBrown, P. (2006). A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal. In S. C. Levinson & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (pp. 230–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBrunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., Augustyn, J. S., & Taylor, H. A. (2009). When You and I Share Perspectives: Pronouns Modulate Perspective Taking During Narrative Comprehension. Psychological Science, 20(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02249.xpl_PL
dc.referencesBueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1525), 1831–1840. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0028pl_PL
dc.referencesBurnard, L. (Ed.). (2000). Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (World Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.pl_PL
dc.referencesBurnett, P. (1978). Time Cognition and Urban Travel Behavior. Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 60(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.2307/490634pl_PL
dc.referencesBybee, J. L. (2006). From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186pl_PL
dc.referencesBybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCacciari, C., Bolognini, N., Senna, I., Pellicciari, M. C., Miniussi, C., & Papagno, C. (2011). Literal, fictive and metaphorical motion sentences preserve the motion component of the verb: A TMS study. Brain and Language, 119(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.004pl_PL
dc.referencesCadierno, T. (2008). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 239–275). New York: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesCadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.10cadpl_PL
dc.referencesCann, R. (1993). Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Shared System for Ordering Small and Large Numbers in Monkeys and Humans. Psychological Science, 17(5), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01719.xpl_PL
dc.referencesCappelle, B., & Declerck, R. (2005). Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 889–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.012pl_PL
dc.referencesCardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2012). From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. NeuroImage, 59(4), 3212–3221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079pl_PL
dc.referencesCarlson, G. N. (1984). Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics, 22(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1984.22.3.259pl_PL
dc.referencesCarlson, L. A. (2010). Encoding Space in Spatial Language. In K. S. Mix, L. B. Smith, & M. Gasser (Eds.), The Spatial Foundations of Language and Cognition (pp. 157–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCarlson, L. A., Regier, T., & Covey, E. (2003). Defining Spatial Relations: Reconciling Axis and Vector Representations. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 111–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCasasanto, D. (2008). Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic Differences in Temporal Language and Thought. In P. Indefrey & M. Gullberg (Eds.), Time to Speak: Cognitive and Neural Prerequisites for Time in Language (pp. 63–79). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.pl_PL
dc.referencesCasasanto, D. (2010). Space for thinking. In V. Evans & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions (pp. 453–478). London: Equinox.pl_PL
dc.referencesCasasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004pl_PL
dc.referencesCermisoni, R., Actis-Grosso, R., Stucchi, N., & Antonelli, M. (2010). Space and Time in Benussi Tau Effect. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, 26, 483–488.pl_PL
dc.referencesChatterjee, A. (2010). Disembodying cognition. Language and Cognition, 2(01), 79–116. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.004pl_PL
dc.referencesChipman, S. F. (Ed.). (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (1962). A transformational approach to syntax. In A. A. Hill, (Ed.), Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English: May 9-12 1958 (pp. 124–158). Austin,TX: University of Texas.pl_PL
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.pl_PL
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.pl_PL
dc.referencesChomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCienki, A. J. (1997). Some Properties and Groupings of Image Schemas. In M. Verspoor, K. Yi, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning (pp. 3–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesCienki, A. J. (1998). STRAIGHT: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 107–150. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107pl_PL
dc.referencesClark, A. (2006). Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012pl_PL
dc.referencesClark, E. V. (1974). Normal States and Evaluative Viewpoints. Language, 50(2), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/412440pl_PL
dc.referencesClark, E. V., & Clark, H. H. (1979). When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811.pl_PL
dc.referencesClark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesClark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesClausner, T. C. (2005). Image schema paradoxes: Implications for cognitive semantics. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 93–110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesClausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001pl_PL
dc.referencesCohen, J., Hansel, C. E. M., & Sylvester, J. D. (1953). A New Phenomenon in Time Judgment. Nature, 172(4385), 901–901. https://doi.org/10.1038/172901a0pl_PL
dc.referencesCohen, J., Hansel, C. E. M., & Sylvester, J. D. (1955). Interdependence in judgments of space, time and movement. Acta Psychologica, 11, 360–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(55)80098-4pl_PL
dc.referencesCohn, A. G., Bennett, B., Gooday, J., & Gotts, N. M. (1997). Qualitative Spatial Representation and Reasoning with the Region Connection Calculus. GeoInformatica, 1(3), 275–316. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009712514511pl_PL
dc.referencesComrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesConnell, L. (2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102(3), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.009pl_PL
dc.referencesConnell, L., & Lynott, D. (2009). Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.573pl_PL
dc.referencesConway, L. G., Repke, M. A., & Houck, S. C. (2016). Psychological Spacetime: Implications of Relativity Theory for Time Perception. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016674511pl_PL
dc.referencesCoulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCoulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3–4), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.014pl_PL
dc.referencesCoulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.010pl_PL
dc.referencesCoulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research, 1146, 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.008pl_PL
dc.referencesCoventry, K. R., Lynott, D., Cangelosi, A., Monrouxe, L., Joyce, D., & Richardson, D. C. (2010). Spatial language, visual attention, and perceptual simulation. Brain and Language, 112(3), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.06.001pl_PL
dc.referencesCroft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCroft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W. B., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 201–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesCroft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesDancygier, B. (Ed.). (2017). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDavidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesDavidson, D. (1963/2001a). Actions, Reasons, and Causes [First published in 1963]. In Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd Ed. (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDavidson, D. (1967/2001b). The Logical Form of Action Sentences [First published in 1967]. In Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd Ed. (pp. 105–122). Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDavidson, D. (1971/2001c). Agency [First published in 1971]. In Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd Ed. (pp. 43–62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDavies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02davpl_PL
dc.referencesDavies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018pl_PL
dc.referencesDavies, M. (2015). Corpora: An introduction. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 11–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDe Smedt, H., & Verstraete, J.-C. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.011pl_PL
dc.referencesDe Smedt, J., & De Cruz, H. (2011). The role of material culture in human time representation: Calendrical systems as extensions of mental time travel. Adaptive Behavior, 19(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712310396382pl_PL
dc.referencesDeclerck, R. (2007). Distinguishing between the aspectual categories “(a)telic”, “(im)-perfective” and “(non)bounded.” Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 29, 48–64. https://doi.org/10.17161/KWPL.1808.1787pl_PL
dc.referencesDeignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesDeignan, A. (2008). Corpus Linguistics and Metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDemonte, V., & McNally, L. (Eds.). (2012). Telicity, Change, and State: A cross-categorial view of event structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDepraetere, I. (1995). On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984959pl_PL
dc.referencesDeroy, O. (Ed.). (2017). Sensory Blending: On Synaesthesia and Related Phenomena. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDesagulier, G. (2017). Corpus Linguistics and Statistics with R: Introduction to Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. New York: Springer.pl_PL
dc.referencesDesai, R. H., Conant, L. L., Binder, J. R., Park, H., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). A piece of the action: Modulation of sensory-motor regions by action idioms and metaphors. NeuroImage, 83, 862–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.044pl_PL
dc.referencesDescartes, R. (1637/1985a). Discourse on the Method. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (pp. 111–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDescartes, R. (1644/1985b). Principles of Philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Trans.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (pp. 177–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDeutscher, G. (2010). Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesDewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351pl_PL
dc.referencesDewell, R. B. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 369–393). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesDirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing (pp. 73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesDirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, Second Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesDiSalle, R. (2006). Understanding Space-time: The Philosophical Development of Physics from Newton to Einstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesDiSalle, R. (2016). Space and Time: Inertial Frames. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 02.12.2017 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/spacetime-iframes/pl_PL
dc.referencesDitman, T., Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2010). Simulating an enactment effect: Pronouns guide action simulation during narrative comprehension. Cognition, 115(1), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.014pl_PL
dc.referencesDodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesDove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016pl_PL
dc.referencesDowden, B. (2009). Zeno’s Paradoxes. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 11.09.2013 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/pl_PL
dc.referencesDowty, D. R. (1979/1991a). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ [First published in 1979]. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.pl_PL
dc.referencesDowty, D. R. (1991b). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021pl_PL
dc.referencesDuchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice, 2nd Ed. London: Springer.pl_PL
dc.referencesDuff, A. (1981). The Third Language: Recurrent Problems of Translation into English. New York: Pergamon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEarman, J. (1992). World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEinstein, A. (1905/1952a). On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies [First published in 1905 as Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper]. In W. Perrett & G. B. Jeffery (Trans.), The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Papers on the Special and General Theory of Relativity (pp. 35–65). New York: Dover.pl_PL
dc.referencesEinstein, A. (1916/1952b). The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. [First published in 1916 as Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie]. In W. Perrett & G. B. Jeffery (Trans.), The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Papers on the Special and General Theory of Relativity (pp. 109–164). New York: Dover.pl_PL
dc.referencesEngberg-Pedersen, E. (1999). Space and Time. In J. Allwood & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (pp. 131–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesEngelbert, M., & Carruthers, P. (2010). Introspection. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(2), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.4pl_PL
dc.referencesEschenbach, C. (2005). Contextual, Functional, and Geometric Components in the Semantics of Projective Terms. In L. A. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space (pp. 71–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V. (2003). The Structure of Time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V. (2009). How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V. (2012). Cognitive linguistics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1163pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V. (2013). Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V. (2014). The Language Myth: Why Language Is Not an Instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V. (2017). Cognitive Linguistics. In S. E. F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science (pp. 283–300). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesEvans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesFabiszak, M. (2008). Corpus frequency as a guide to metaphor labelling. In Z. Wąsik & T. Komendziński (Eds.), Metaphor and Cognition (pp. 149–162). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesFabiszak, M., & Konat, B. (2013). Zastosowanie korpusów językowych w języko-znawstwie kognitywnym. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Metodologie językoznawstwa. Ewolucja języka. Ewolucja teorii językoznawczych. (pp. 131–142). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [First published in 1985 by MIT Press]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G. (2007). Mental Spaces. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 351–376). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G., & Lakoff, G. (2009). On Metaphor and Blending. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.393pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3–4), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.017pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFellbaum, C. (1990). English Verbs as a Semantic Net. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 278–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/3.4.278pl_PL
dc.referencesFellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFellbaum, C. (1999). The Organization of Verbs and Verb Concepts in a Semantic Net. In P. Saint-Dizier (Ed.), Predicative Forms in Natural Language and in Lexical Knowledge Bases (pp. 93–109). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2746-4_3pl_PL
dc.referencesFellbaum, C. (2006). WordNet(s). In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition (pp. 665–670). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00946-9pl_PL
dc.referencesFellbaum, C. (2017). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Resource. In S. E. F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science (pp. 301–314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFilipović, L. (2007). Talking About Motion: A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Lexicalization Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J. (1975/1997). Lectures on Deixis [First published in 1975 as Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971]. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J. (1982). Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis. In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place, and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics (pp. 31–59). New York: John Wiley.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J. (1983). How to know whether you’re coming or going. In G. Rauh (Ed.), Essays on deixis (pp. 219–227). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J. (1992). “Corpus linguistics” or “Computer-aided armchair linguistics.” In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4-8 August 1991 (pp. 35–60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. S. (2000). Describing polysemy: The case of “crawl.” In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 91–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFischer, K. (2010). Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp. 43–59). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesFitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97(2), 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.005pl_PL
dc.referencesFodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFoglia, L., & Wilson, R. A. (2013). Embodied cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1226pl_PL
dc.referencesFrankish, K., & Ramsey, W. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFrawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesFrege, G. (1892/1960). On Sense and Reference [Originally published as Über Sinn und Bedeutung in 1892]. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 2nd Ed. (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.pl_PL
dc.referencesFrege, G. (1918/1956). The Thought: A Logical Inquiry [Originally published as Der Gedanke in 1918]. Mind, 65(1), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/65.1.289pl_PL
dc.referencesGaby, A. (2012). The Thaayorre think of time like they talk of space. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00300pl_PL
dc.referencesGalton, A. (2011). Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 695–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002pl_PL
dc.referencesGamborotto, P., & Muller, P. (2003). Ontological Problems for the Semantics of Spatial Expressions in Natural Language. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 144–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGanis, G., & Schendan, H. E. (2011). Visual imagery. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.103pl_PL
dc.referencesGarside, R., Leech, G. N., & McEnery, T. (1997). Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman.pl_PL
dc.referencesGeeraerts, D. (2006). Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (pp. 21–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesGeeraerts, D. (2010). The doctor and the semantician. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp. 63–78). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesGeeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGehrke, B. (2008). Ps in Motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events (Ph.D. Dissertation). Utrecht University, Utrecht.pl_PL
dc.referencesGennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00166-4pl_PL
dc.referencesGentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, Form, and Figurative Language Processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896pl_PL
dc.referencesGentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGeuder, W., & Weisgerber, M. (2008, March). Manner of Movement and the Conceptualization of Force. Slides presented at the Journée d’étude “Il y a manière et manière,” Université d’Artois, Arras. Retrieved on 22.05.2018 from https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Tk5YmEwN/MannerMovement_slidescompact.pdfpl_PL
dc.referencesGibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGibbs, R. W. (2007). Idioms and Formulaic Language. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 697–725). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGijssels, T., & Casasanto, D. (2017). Conceptualizing Time in Terms of Space: Experimental Evidence. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 651–668). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGill, M. L., & Lennox, J. G. (Eds.). (1994). Self-Motion: From Aristotle to Newton. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGiora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183pl_PL
dc.referencesGiora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGlebkin, V. (2015). Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition? Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0067pl_PL
dc.referencesGleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2012). New Perspectives on Language and Thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 543–568). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2013). Relations Between Language and Thought. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 504–523). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGlenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1), 1–55.pl_PL
dc.referencesGlenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.55pl_PL
dc.referencesGlenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48(7), 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.010pl_PL
dc.referencesGlenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313pl_PL
dc.referencesGlenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545067pl_PL
dc.referencesGlenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2714pl_PL
dc.referencesGlucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGlucksberg, S. (2003). The Psycholinguistics of Metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2pl_PL
dc.referencesGlynn, D. (2010). Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp. 1–41). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesGlynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.). (2010). Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesGlynn, D., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (2014). Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesGłaz, A. (2014). When -ities collide: Virtuality, actuality, reality. In K. Rudnicka-Szozda & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Making (pp. 77–88). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoddard, C. (1997). The semantics of coming and going. Pragmatics, 7(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.7.2.02godpl_PL
dc.referencesGoddard, C. (Ed.). (2008). Cross-Linguistic Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoddard, C. (2011). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., & Wong, J. (2017). “Walking” and “running” in English and German: The conceptual semantics of verbs of human locomotion. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.03godpl_PL
dc.referencesGoldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9pl_PL
dc.referencesGoldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoldberg, A. E. (2010). Verbs, Constructions, and Semantic Frames. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure (pp. 39–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGoldberg, A. E., & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.22pl_PL
dc.referencesGoschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2013). Variation and Change in the Encoding of Motion Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrady, J. E. (2005). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrady, J. E. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrant, E. (1981). Much Ado About Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T. (2009). What is Corpus Linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1225–1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00149.xpl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T. (2012). Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchanges. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description (pp. 41–63). Amsterdam: Rodopi.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T. (2013). Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction, 2nd Revised Edition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T. (2015). Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 50–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T. (2017). Corpus Approaches. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 590–606). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T., & Berez, A. L. (2017). Linguistic Annotation in/for Corpus Linguistics. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Handbook of Linguistic Annotation (pp. 379–409). Dordrecht: Springer.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T., & Divjak, D. (2010). Quantitative approaches in usage-based Cognitive Semantics: Myths, erroneous assumptions, and a proposal. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp. 333–353). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesGries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesGrondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2007). A case for a Cognitive corpus linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesGruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations (Ph.D. Dissertation). MIT, Cambridge, MA.pl_PL
dc.referencesGruber, J. S. (1976). Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland.pl_PL
dc.referencesGryl, A., Moulin, B., & Kettani, D. (2002). A conceptual model for representing verbal expressions used in route descriptions. In K. R. Coventry & P. Olivier (Eds.), Spatial Language: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives (pp. 19–42). Dordrecht: Kluwer.pl_PL
dc.referencesGumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHabel, C. (2005). Verbs and Directions: The Interaction of Geometry and Function in Determining Orientation. In L. A. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space (pp. 93–112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHaiman, J. (1980). Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50(4), 329–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90089-3pl_PL
dc.referencesHale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In K. L. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHale, K. L., & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHampe, B. (Ed.). (2005a). From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesHampe, B. (2005b). Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesHampe, B. (2005c). When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus–minus parameter in image-schema theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.81pl_PL
dc.referencesHarasawa, I. (1994). A pragmatic view of V-te-i-ru and V-te-ar-u. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90066-3pl_PL
dc.referencesHasko, V. (2010). The Role of Thinking for Speaking in Adult L2 Speech: The Case of (Non)unidirectionality Encoding by American Learners of Russian. In Z.-H. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking (pp. 34–58). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.pl_PL
dc.referencesHauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569pl_PL
dc.referencesHawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesHelson, H. (1930). The tau effect – an example of psychological relativity. Science, 71(1847), 536–537. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.71.1847.536pl_PL
dc.referencesHeylen, K., Tummers, J., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). Methodological issues in corpus-based Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (pp. 91–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesHigginbotham, J., Pianesi, F., & Varzi, A. (2000). Speaking of Events. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHill, A. A. (Ed.). (1962). Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English: May 9-12 1958. Austin,TX: University of Texas.pl_PL
dc.referencesHoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHohenstein, J., Eisenberg, A., & Naigles, L. (2006). Is he floating across or crossing afloat? Cross-influence of L1 and L2 in Spanish–English bilingual adults. Bilingualism, 9(03), 249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002616pl_PL
dc.referencesHostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.495pl_PL
dc.referencesHuggett, N. (2018). Zeno’s Paradoxes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 23.04.2018 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/paradox-zeno/pl_PL
dc.referencesHuggett, N., & Hoefer, C. (2015). Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 11.09.2017 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/spacetime-theories/pl_PL
dc.referencesHusserl, E. (1939/1970). The Origin of Geometry. In D. Carr (Trans.), The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy [Original work first published in 1939] (pp. 353–378). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHusserl, E. (1948/1973). Experience and Judgment: Investigations in a Genealogy of Logic [First published in 1948 as Erfahrung und Urteil: Untersuchungen zur Genealogie der Logik]. (J. S. Churchill & K. Ameriks, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008pl_PL
dc.referencesHuumo, T. (2005). How fictive dynamicity motivates aspect marking: The riddle of the Finnish quasi-resultative construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.113pl_PL
dc.referencesHuumo, T. (2017). The grammar of temporal motion: A Cognitive Grammar account of motion metaphors of time. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0015pl_PL
dc.referencesHwang, J. D., & Palmer, M. (2015). Identification of caused motion constructions. In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2015) (pp. 51–60). Denver, CO: Association for Computational Linguistics.pl_PL
dc.referencesHwang, J. D., Palmer, M., & Zaenen, A. (2013). Representing paths of motion in VerbNet. In T. H. King & V. de Paiva (Eds.), From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen. (pp. 155–166). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.pl_PL
dc.referencesIkegami, Y. (1969). The Semological Structure of the English Verbs of Motion (Linguistic Automation Project). New Haven, CT: Yale University.pl_PL
dc.referencesIwata, S. (1996). Motion and Extent: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Studia Linguistica, 50(3), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1996.tb00351.xpl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1985). Multiple subcategorization and the theta-criterion: The case of climb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154264pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41(1–3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-Xpl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1992). Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1996a). Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.93pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1996b). The Architecture of the Linguistic-Spatial Interface. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 1–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1996c). The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even Quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 305–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133686pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty?: Two views. Language, 87(3), 586–624. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0063pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R. (2012). Language as a source of evidence for theories of spatial representation. Perception, 41(9), 1128–1152. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7271pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R., & Aaron, D. (1991). Review of “More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.” Language, 67(2), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/415109pl_PL
dc.referencesJackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.04.006pl_PL
dc.referencesJanda, L. A. (2015). Cognitive Linguistics in the Year 2015. Cognitive Semantics, 1(1), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00101005pl_PL
dc.referencesJaniak, A. (2012). Kant’s Views on Space and Time. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 22.07.2013 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/kant-spacetime/pl_PL
dc.referencesJaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJohnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJohnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJohnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesJohnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). The Computer and the Mind: An Introduction to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKadosh, R. C., & Gertner, L. (2011). Synesthesia: Gluing Together Time, Number, and Space. In S. Dehaene & E. M. Brannon (Eds.), Space, Time and Number in the Brain (pp. 123–132). London: Academic Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.pl_PL
dc.referencesKahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKalisz, R. (2001). Językoznawstwo kognitywne w świetle językoznawstwa funkcjonalnego [Cognitive Linguistics From the Perspective of Functional Linguistics]. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesKant, I. (1768/1968). Concerning the Ultimate Foundation of the Differentiation of Regions in Space [First published in 1768]. In G. B. Kerferd & D. E. Walford (Trans.), Selected Pre-Critical Writings and Correspondence with Beck (pp. 36–43). Manchester: Manchester University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKant, I. (1787/2003). Critique of Pure Reason [First published in 1787 as Kritik der reinen Vernunft]. (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.pl_PL
dc.referencesKardela, H. (2006a). Koncepcja umysłu ucieleśnionego w kognitywizmie. In W. Dziarnowska & A. Klawiter (Eds.), Mózg i jego umysły (pp. 217–243). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka.pl_PL
dc.referencesKardela, H. (2006b). Metodologia językoznawstwa kognitywnego. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Metodologie językoznawstwa współczesnego: Podstawy teoretyczne (pp. 196–233). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.pl_PL
dc.referencesKaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing Meaning: The Role of Affordances and Grammatical Constructions in Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 508–529. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2705pl_PL
dc.referencesKaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M. E., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94(3), B79–B89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.005pl_PL
dc.referencesKatz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 39(2), 170. https://doi.org/10.2307/411200pl_PL
dc.referencesKay, P. (2005). Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesKay, P. (2013). The Limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050pl_PL
dc.referencesKennedy, C. (2001). Polar opposition and the ontology of “degrees.” Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 33–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005668525906pl_PL
dc.referencesKennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2008). Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse (pp. 156–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKennedy, J. M. (1997). How the Blind Draw. Scientific American, 276(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0197-76pl_PL
dc.referencesKenny, A. (1963/2003). Action, Emotion, and Will [First published in 1963]. London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesKiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006pl_PL
dc.referencesKiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on Denominal Verbs. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Complex Predicates (pp. 473–499). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.pl_PL
dc.referencesKlippel, A., Tenbrink, T., & Montello, D. R. (2013). The role of structure and function in the conceptualization of direction. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion Encoding in Language and Space (pp. 102–119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKipper, K., Korhonen, A., Ryant, N., & Palmer, M. (2008). A large-scale classification of English verbs. Language Resources and Evaluation, 42(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9048-2pl_PL
dc.referencesKorzybski, A. (1933/1995). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, 5th Ed. [First published in 1933]. Brooklyn, New York: Institute of General Semantics.pl_PL
dc.referencesKosman, A. L. (1969). Aristotle’s Definition of Motion. Phronesis, 14(1), 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852869X00037pl_PL
dc.referencesKosman, A. L. (1987). Aristotle’s Definition of Change. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 4(1), 3–16.pl_PL
dc.referencesKosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the Brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000130pl_PL
dc.referencesKosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1038/35090055pl_PL
dc.referencesKosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2003). Mental imagery: Against the nihilistic hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00025-1pl_PL
dc.referencesKövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKövecses, Z. (2015). Where Metaphors Come from: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesKreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 291–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.291pl_PL
dc.referencesKrzeszowski, T. P. (1993). The axiological parameter in preconceptual image schemata. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language (pp. 307–329). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesKrzeszowski, T. P. (1997). Angels and Devils in Hell: Elements of Axiology in Semantics. Warszawa: Energeia.pl_PL
dc.referencesKučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLaeng, B., & Teodorescu, D.-S. (2002). Eye scanpaths during visual imagery reenact those of perception of the same visual scene. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00065-9pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G. (1987a). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G. (1987b). The Death of Dead Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0202_5pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd Ed (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes from: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesLakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.009pl_PL
dc.referencesLakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2012). Language and Memory for Motion Events: Origins of the Asymmetry Between Source and Goal Paths. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01220.xpl_PL
dc.referencesLandau, B. (2003). Axes and Direction in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 18–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLandau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(02), 217–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029733pl_PL
dc.referencesLandau, B., Dessalegn, B., & Goldberg, A. M. (2010). Language and space: Momentary interactions. In V. Evans & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions (pp. 51–78). London: Equinox.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (1986). Abstract Motion. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 455–471). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (1991/2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd Ed. [First edition published in 1991]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (1999). Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77–103.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2005). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking (pp. 164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin: De Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2008a). Cognitive Grammar A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2008b). Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2008c). Sequential and summary scanning: A reply. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(4), 533–607. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.022pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2009a). A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.027pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2009b). Gramatyka kognitywna: Wprowadzenie. (E. Tabakowska & others, Trans.). Kraków: TAiWPN Universitas.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2012). Linguistic manifestations of the space-time (dis)analogy. In L. Filipović & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Language, culture, and cognition (pp. 191–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2014). Culture and Cognition, Lexicon and Grammar. In M. Yamaguchi, D. Tay, & B. Blount (Eds.), Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition: the Intersection of Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 27–49). London: Palgrave Macmillan.pl_PL
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. (2015). Construal. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 120–142). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesLeech, G. N. (2004). Meaning and the English Verb, 3rd Ed. New York: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesLeech, G. N. (2005). Adding Linguistic Annotation. In W. Martin (Ed.), Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice (pp. 17–29). Oxford: Oxbow Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesLeibowitz, H. W., Guzy, L. T., Peterson, E., & Blake, P. T. (1993). Quantitative perceptual estimates: Verbal versus nonverbal retrieval techniques. Perception, 22(9), 1051–1060. https://doi.org/10.1068/p221051pl_PL
dc.referencesLevelt, W. J. M. (1996). Perspective Taking and Ellipsis in Spatial Descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 77–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1991). Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41(1–3), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1992). The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. In I. M. Roca (Ed.), Thematic Structure. Berlin: De Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1994). A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English. Lingua, 92, 35–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90337-9pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2006). Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In H.-M. Gärtner, S. Beck, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), In Between 40 and 60 Puzzles for Krifka. Berlin: ZAS. Retrieved on 06.03.2018 from http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2013). Lexicalized Meaning and Manner/Result Complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke, & R. Marín (Eds.), Studies in the Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates (Vol. 93, pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5983-1_3pl_PL
dc.referencesLevin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2014). Manner and result: A view from clean. In R. Pensalfini, M. Turpin, & D. Guillemin (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series (Vol. 147, pp. 337–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.147.14levpl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of Reference and Molyneux’s Question: Crosslinguistic Evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (Eds.). (2006a). Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006b). Patterns in the data: Towards a semantic typology of spatial description. In S. C. Levinson & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (pp. 512–552). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006c). The background to the study of the language of space. In S. C. Levinson & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (1987). Conceptual Analysis, Linguistic Meaning and Verbal Interaction. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Łódź: Łódź University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (1996). Cross-linguistic and language-specific aspects of semantic prosody. Language Sciences, 18(1–2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(96)00013-7pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 139–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.). (2008a). Asymmetric Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2008b). Czym jest język? Dzisiejsze kontrowersje w paradygmatach generatywnych i kognitywnych. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Metodologie językoznawstwa: współczesne tendencje i kontrowersje (pp. 9–26). Kraków: Lexis.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2010). Re-conceptualization and the emergence of discourse-meaning as a theory of translation. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in Translation (pp. 105–148). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2011). Events as They Are. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Turning Points in the Philosophy of Language and Linguistics (pp. 35–64). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2012). Approximative Spaces and the Tolerance Threshold in Communication. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 165–183.pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2017). Partial Perception and Approximate Understanding. Research in Language, 15(2), 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0009pl_PL
dc.referencesLewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., & Dziwirek, K. (Eds.). (2009). Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesLichtenberk, F. (1991). Semantic Change and Heterosemy in Grammaticalization. Language, 67(3), 475–509. https://doi.org/10.2307/415035pl_PL
dc.referencesLiu, J., Shang, J., & Han, J. (2017). Phrase Mining from Massive Text and Its Applications. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.pl_PL
dc.referencesLocke, J. (1689/1995). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding [First published in 1689]. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesLogan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A Computational Analysis of the Apprehension of Spatial Relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLogothetis, N. K. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature, 453(7197), 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06976pl_PL
dc.referencesLoucks, J., & Pederson, E. (2011). Linguistic and non-linguistic categorization of complex motion events. In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event Representation in Language and Cognition (pp. 108–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2010). General Magnitude Representation in Human Infants. Psychological Science, 21(6), 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610370158pl_PL
dc.referencesLourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2011). Origins and Development of Generalized Magnitude Representation. In S. Dehaene & E. M. Brannon (Eds.), Space, Time and Number in the Brain (pp. 225–244). Elsevier.pl_PL
dc.referencesLouw, B. (1993). Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? — The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.11loupl_PL
dc.referencesLouw, B., & Milojkovic, M. (2014). Semantic prosody. In P. Stockwell & S. Whiteley (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics (pp. 263–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLovejoy, A. O. (1936). The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLucy, J. A. (1992a). Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLucy, J. A. (1992b). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLucy, J. A. (1994). The role of semantic value in lexical comparison: Motion and position roots in Yucatec Maya. Linguistics, 32(4–5), 623–656. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.623pl_PL
dc.referencesLucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26(1), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.291pl_PL
dc.referencesLynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1–2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMacEachren, A. M. (1980). Travel Time as the Basis of Cognitive Distance. The Professional Geographer, 32(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1980.00030.xpl_PL
dc.referencesMach, E. (1883/2013). The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Exposition of its Principles [First German edition in 1883]. (T. J. McCormack, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1–3), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004pl_PL
dc.referencesMajid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003pl_PL
dc.referencesMalt, B. C., Ameel, E., Imai, M., Gennari, S. P., Saji, N., & Majid, A. (2014). Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.003pl_PL
dc.referencesMalt, B. C., Gennari, S. P., & Imai, M. (2010). Lexicalization patterns and the world-to-words mapping. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience (pp. 29–57). New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMalt, B. C., Gennari, S. P., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A. (2008). Talking About Walking: Biomechanics and the Language of Locomotion. Psychological Science, 19(3), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02074.xpl_PL
dc.referencesMalt, B. C., & Wolff, P. (Eds.). (2010). Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.587pl_PL
dc.referencesMandler, J. M. (2004). The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMandler, J. M. (2005). How to build a baby: III. Image schemas and the transition to verbal thought. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 137–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesMandler, J. M. (2010). The spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2(01), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.002pl_PL
dc.referencesMandler, J. M. (2012). On the Spatial Foundations of the Conceptual System and Its Enrichment. Cognitive Science, 36(3), 421–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01241.xpl_PL
dc.referencesMandler, J. M., & Cánovas, C. P. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(04), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14pl_PL
dc.referencesMani, I., & Pustejovsky, J. (2012). Interpreting Motion: Grounded Representations for Spatial Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMani, I., Pustejovsky, J., & Gaizauskas, R. (Eds.). (2005). The Language of Time: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMari, A. (2006). What do the notions of instrumentality and of manner have in common? In P. Saint-Dizier (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics of Prepositions (pp. 263–287). Dordrecht: Springer.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarr, D. (1982/2010). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information [First published in 1982]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMarr, D., & Vaina, L. (1982). Representation and Recognition of the Movements of Shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 214(1197), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1982.0024pl_PL
dc.referencesMartin, A. (2007). The Representation of Object Concepts in the Brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143pl_PL
dc.referencesMartin, A., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Neuropsychological and Neuroimaging Perspectives on Conceptual Knowledge: An Introduction. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290342000050pl_PL
dc.referencesMartínez-Losa, N. J. (2006). Towards a typology of fictive motion events: Review of existing proposals and presentation of new perspectives. Interlinguistica, 17, 562–569.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T. (2001). How real is fictive motion? (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of California, Santa Cruz.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T. (2004a). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T. (2004b). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T. (2006). Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics Investigations (pp. 67–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T. (2010). Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.010pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T. (2017). Metaphor, Simulation, and Fictive Motion. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 477–490). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., & Bergmann, T. (2015). Fictive motion. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 546–562). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., & Richardson, D. C. (2004). Do eye movements go with fictive motion? In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 909–914). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., Holmes, K. J., Srinivasan, M., & Ramscar, M. (2011). Even Abstract Motion Influences the Understanding of Time. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.609065pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2003). The experiential basis of meaning. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 792–797). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2004). The experiential basis of motion language. In A. S. da Silva, A. Torres, & M. Gonçalves (Eds.), Linguagem, Cultura e Cognição, ou a Linguística Cognitiva, Vol. 2 (pp. 43–57). Coimbra: Almedina.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2005). On the Experiential Link Between Spatial and Temporal Language. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_17pl_PL
dc.referencesMatlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Srinivasan, M. (2005). Even the Most Abstract Motion Influences Temporal Understanding. In B. G. Bara, L. W. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 2527). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatsumoto, N. (2010). The Pragmatics of Multi-Verb Sequences: The Case of the Verb Go. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 6(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-010-0007-9pl_PL
dc.referencesMatsumoto, Y. (1996a). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.183pl_PL
dc.referencesMatsumoto, Y. (1996b). Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 124–156). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMatthews, W. J., & Meck, W. H. (2014). Time perception: The bad news and the good. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(4), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1298pl_PL
dc.referencesMcCloud, S. (1994). Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: HarperPerennial.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcDonough, J. K. (2014). Leibniz’s Philosophy of Physics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 12.06.2017 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/leibniz-physics/pl_PL
dc.referencesMcEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2013). The History of Corpus Linguistics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics (pp. 727–746). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd Ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesMcGlone, M. S., & Harding, J. L. (1998). Back (or forward?) to the future: The role of perscpective in temporal language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1211–1223. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1211pl_PL
dc.referencesMcWhorter, J. H. (2014). The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMerritt, D. J., Casasanto, D., & Brannon, E. M. (2010). Do monkeys think in metaphors? Representations of space and time in monkeys and humans. Cognition, 117(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.011pl_PL
dc.referencesMeteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002pl_PL
dc.referencesMillar, S. (2008). Space and Sense. Hove: Psychology Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMiller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748pl_PL
dc.referencesMiller, G. A., & Fellbaum, C. (2007). WordNet then and now. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41(2), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9044-6pl_PL
dc.referencesMiller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMinkowski, H. (1908/1952). Space and Time [A translation of an address delivered at the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians, at Cologne, September 21, 1908]. In W. Perrett & G. B. Jeffery (Trans.), The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Papers on the Special and General Theory of Relativity (pp. 71–95). New York: Dover.pl_PL
dc.referencesMishra, R. K., & Singh, N. (2010). Online Fictive Motion Understanding: An Eye-Movement Study With Hindi. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(3), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2010.489393pl_PL
dc.referencesMontague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. (R. H. Thomason, Ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMoon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesMoore, K. E. (2014). The Spatial Language of Time: Metaphor, Metonymy, and Frames of Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesMurphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60(2), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00711-1pl_PL
dc.referencesMurphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00725-1pl_PL
dc.referencesMüller, C. (2008). Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesNakazawa, T. (2007). A Typology of the Ground of Deictic Motion Verbs As Path-Conflating Verbs: The Speaker, the Addressee, and Beyond. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 43(2), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-007-0014-3pl_PL
dc.referencesNakazawa, T. (2009). A Typology of the Path of Deictic Motion Verbs as Path-Conflating Verbs: The Entailment of Arrival and the Deictic Center. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(3), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0022-6pl_PL
dc.referencesNewman, J. (Ed.). (2002). The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesNewman, J., & Lin, J. (2007). The purposefulness of going: A corpus-linguistic study. In J. T. Waliński, K. Kredens, & S. Goźdź-Roszkowski (Eds.), Corpora and ICT in Language Studies (pp. 293–308). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesNewman, J., & Rice, S. (2004). Patterns of usage for English SIT, STAND, and LIE: A cognitively-inspired exploration in corpus linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 351–396. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.013pl_PL
dc.referencesNewton, I. (1687/1995). The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy [First published in 1687 as Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica]. (A. Motte, Trans.). Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesNida, E. A. (1975). A Componential Analysis of Meaning An Introduction to Semantic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesNikanne, U., & van der Zee, E. (2013). The lexical representation of path curvature in motion expressions: A three‐way path curvature distinction. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion Encoding in Language and Space (pp. 187–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesNúñez, R. E., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008pl_PL
dc.referencesNúñez, R. E., Cooperrider, K., Doan, D., & Wassmann, J. (2012). Contours of time: Topographic construals of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of Papua New Guinea. Cognition, 124(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.007pl_PL
dc.referencesO’Keefe, J. (1996). The Spatial Prepositions in English, Vector Grammar, and the Cognitive Map Theory. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 277–316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesO’Keefe, J. (2003). Vector Grammar, Places, and the Functional Role of the Spatial Prepositions in English. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 69–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesOakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesOnozuka, H. (2012). Notes on Type I Subjective Motion Expressions in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 32(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2012.674472pl_PL
dc.referencesOshima, D. Y. (2006). GO and COME Revisited: What Serves as a Reference Point? In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 287–298). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3466pl_PL
dc.referencesOvergaard, S. (2012). Visual perception and self-movement: Another look. In A. Foolen, U. M. Lüdtke, T. P. Racine, & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesÖzçalişkan, Ş. (2013). Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(02), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000325pl_PL
dc.referencesPalmer, J. (2016). Parmenides. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 20.02.2018 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/parmenides/pl_PL
dc.referencesPalmer, J. (2017). Zeno of Elea. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 16.03.2018 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/zeno-elea/pl_PL
dc.referencesPalmer, M., Bonial, C., & Hwang, J. D. (2017). VerbNet: Capturing English Verb Behavior, Meaning, and Usage. In S. E. F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science (pp. 315–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPapafragou, A. (2010). Source-Goal Asymmetries in Motion Representation: Implications for Language Production and Comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 1064–1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01107.xpl_PL
dc.referencesPapafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108(1), 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007pl_PL
dc.referencesPapafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84(2), 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00046-Xpl_PL
dc.referencesPapafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), B75–B87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.005pl_PL
dc.referencesPapafragou, A., & Selimis, S. (2010). Event categorisation and language: A cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 224–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903017000pl_PL
dc.referencesParsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPawelec, A. (2006). The death of metaphor. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 123, 117–121.pl_PL
dc.referencesPecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.). (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPederson, E. (2017). Approaches to Motion Event Typology. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 574–598). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPęzik, P. (2015). Spokes – a Search and Exploration Service for Conversational Corpus Data. In Selected Papers from CLARIN 2014, 99–109 Electronic Conference Proceedings (pp. 99–109). Linköping University Electronic Press: Linköping University Electronic Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPhelps, K. S., & Duman, S. (2012). Manipulating Manner: Semantic Representations of Human Locomotion Verbs in English and German. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857–862). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesPiaget, J. (1946/1969). The Child’s Conception of Time [First published in 1946 as Le développement de la notion de temps chez l’enfant]. (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesPiaget, J. (1946/1970). The Child’s Conception of Movement and Speed [First published in 1946 as Les notions de mouvement et de vitesse chez l’enfant]. (G. E. T. Holloway & M. J. Mackenzie, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesPiaget, J. (1979). Relations Between Psychology and Other Sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 30(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.30.020179.000245pl_PL
dc.referencesPiaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1948/1956). The Child’s Conception of Space [First published in 1948 as La représentation de l’espace chez l’enfant]. (F. J. Langdon & J. L. Lunzer, Trans.). New York: Humanities Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesPiaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1948/1960). The Child’s Conception of Geometry [First published in 1948 as La géométrie spontanée de l’enfant]. (E. A. Lunzer, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesPiantadosi, S. T. (2014). Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1112–1130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6pl_PL
dc.referencesPiasecki, M., Broda, B., & Szpakowicz, S. (2009). A Wordnet from the Ground Up. Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej.pl_PL
dc.referencesPinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: William Morrow.pl_PL
dc.referencesPinker, S. (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York: Viking.pl_PL
dc.referencesPinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95(2), 201–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004pl_PL
dc.referencesPiñón, C. J. (1993). Paths and their names. In K. Beals, G. Cooke, D. Kathman, S. Kita, K.-E. McCullough, & D. Testen (Eds.), Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 287–303). Chicago: CLS.pl_PL
dc.referencesPlato. (388BC/1997). Cratylus [written c. 388 BC]. In J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato: Complete Works (pp. 101–156). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.pl_PL
dc.referencesPodhorodecka, J. (2007). Evaluative Metaphor: Extended meanings of English motion verbs. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.pl_PL
dc.referencesPoincaré, H. (1905/1958). The Value of Science [First published in 1905 as La Valeur de la Science]. (G. B. Halsted, Trans.). New York: Dover.pl_PL
dc.referencesPourcel, S. (2005). Relativism in the linguistic representation and cognitive conceptualisation of motion events across verb-framed and satellite-framed languages (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Durham, Durham.pl_PL
dc.referencesPourcel, S. (2010). Motion: a conceptual typology. In V. Evans & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions (pp. 419–449). London: Equinox.pl_PL
dc.referencesPowers, D. M. W. (1998). Applications and explanations of Zipf’s law. In D. M. W. Powers (Ed.), NeMLaP3/CoNLL98: New Methods in Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (pp. 151–160). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.pl_PL
dc.referencesPrice-Williams, D. R. (1954). The Kappa Effect. Nature, 173(4399), 363–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/173363a0pl_PL
dc.referencesPrimus, B. (2016). Participant roles. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (pp. 403–418). London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesPulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706pl_PL
dc.referencesPulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(5), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2811pl_PL
dc.referencesPustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41(1–3), 47–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-Ypl_PL
dc.referencesPylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(2), 157–182.pl_PL
dc.referencesPylyshyn, Z. W. (2003). Return of the mental image: Are there really pictures in the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00003-2pl_PL
dc.referencesQuirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.pl_PL
dc.referencesRadden, G. (1996). Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods (pp. 423–458). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesRadden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesRadvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2011). Event perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.133pl_PL
dc.referencesRadvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2014). Event cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesRamachandran, V. S., & Anstis, S. M. (1986). The Perception of Apparent Motion. Scientific American, 254(6), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0686-102pl_PL
dc.referencesRamscar, M., Matlock, T., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Time, Motion, and Meaning: The Experiential Basis of Abstract Thought. In K. S. Mix, L. B. Smith, & M. Gasser (Eds.), The Spatial Foundations of Language and Cognition (pp. 67–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesRamscar, M., Matlock, T., & Dye, M. (2010). Running down the clock: The role of expectation in our understanding of time and motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(5), 589–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903381166pl_PL
dc.referencesRandell, D., Cui, Z., & Cohn, A. G. (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 165–176). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.pl_PL
dc.referencesRandell, D., Cui, Z., & Cohn, A. G. (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 165–176). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.pl_PL
dc.referencesRappaport Hovav, M. (2014). Lexical content and context: The causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua, 141, 8–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.09.006pl_PL
dc.referencesRappaport Hovav, M., Doron, E., & Sichel, I. (Eds.). (2010). Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesRappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building Verb Meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.pl_PL
dc.referencesRappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesRauh, G. (1981). On coming and going in English and German. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 13, 53–68.pl_PL
dc.referencesRauh, G. (Ed.). (1983). Essays on deixis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.pl_PL
dc.referencesReines, M. F., & Prinz, J. (2009). Reviving Whorf: The Return of Linguistic Relativity. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 1022–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00260.xpl_PL
dc.referencesResnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61(1–2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00722-6pl_PL
dc.referencesRichardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Eye movements in language and cognition: A brief introduction. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 323–344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesRichardson, D. C., & Matlock, T. (2007). The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.004pl_PL
dc.referencesRichardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27(5), 767–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00064-8pl_PL
dc.referencesRinck, M. (2005). Spatial Situation Models. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking (pp. 334–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesRobinson, H. (2012). Dualism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 25.09.2014 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/dualism/pl_PL
dc.referencesRojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2003). Fictive Motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 125–151.pl_PL
dc.referencesRojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2009). Fictive Motion in Spanish: Travellable, non-travellable and path-related manner information. In J. Valenzuela, A. Rojo, & C. Soriano (Eds.), Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Models (pp. 244–260). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesRomero Lauro, L. J., Mattavelli, G., Papagno, C., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). She runs, the road runs, my mind runs, bad blood runs between us: Literal and figurative motion verbs: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 83, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.050pl_PL
dc.referencesRosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorisation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorisation (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesRossini, P. M., & Rossi, S. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: Diagnostic, therapeutic, and research potential. Neurology, 68(7), 484–488. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000250268.13789.b2pl_PL
dc.referencesRuiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189pl_PL
dc.referencesRynasiewicz, R. (2014a). Newton’s Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 15.08.2017 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesRynasiewicz, R. (2014b). Newton’s Views on Space, Time, and Motion. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 04.08.2015 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/newton-stm/pl_PL
dc.referencesSachs, J. (1995). Aristotle’s Physics: A Guided Study. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSachs, J. (2005). Aristotle: Motion and its Place in Nature. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 24.04.2018 from https://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-mot/pl_PL
dc.referencesSampaio, W., Sinha, C., & Sinha, V. D. S. (2009). Mixing and mapping: Motion, path, and manner in Amondawa. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalişkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 427–439). New York: Psychology Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 89–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89pl_PL
dc.referencesSapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language, 5(4), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/409588pl_PL
dc.referencesSarrazin, J.-C., Giraudo, M.-D., & Vercher, J.-L. (2008). Coupling kinematics of memory and kinematics of movement: The conditions for a psychological relativity. Human Movement Science, 27(3), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.09.003pl_PL
dc.referencesSarrazin, J.-C., Tonnelier, A., & Alexandre, F. (2005). A model of contextual effect on reproduced extents in recall tasks: The issue of the imputed motion hypothesis. Biological Cybernetics, 92(5), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-005-0553-3pl_PL
dc.referencesSato, M. (2010). Message in the “body”: Effects of simulation in sentence production (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Hawaii, Mānoa.pl_PL
dc.referencesSato, M., & Bergen, B. K. (2013). The case of the missing pronouns: Does mentally simulated perspective play a functional role in the comprehension of person? Cognition, 127(3), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.004pl_PL
dc.referencesSattig, T. (2006). The Language and Reality of Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSaygin, A. P., McCullough, S., Alac, M., & Emmorey, K. (2010). Modulation of BOLD Response in Motion-sensitive Lateral Temporal Cortex by Real and Fictive Motion Sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(11), 2480–2490. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21388pl_PL
dc.referencesSchmidtke, H., Tschander, L., Eschenbach, C., & Habel, C. (2003). Change of Orientation. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 166–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSchönefeld, D. (2013). Go mad – come true – run dry: Metaphorical motion, semantic preference(s) and deixis. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 1(1), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2013-0012pl_PL
dc.referencesSemin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.). (2008). Embodied Grounding: Social, Cognitive, Affective, and Neuroscientific Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSemino, E., & Culpeper, J. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSeuren, P. A. M. (2013). From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the Theory of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSheets-Johnstone, M. (2011). The Primacy of Movement, Expanded 2nd Ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesShibatani, M. (2002). Introduction: Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSinclair, J. (1996). Preliminary recommendations on Corpus Typology. (EAGLES Guidelines 1996 No. EAG--TCWG--CTYP/P). Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale, Pisa: Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards. Retrieved on 15.07.2001 from http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES/corpustyp/corpustyp.htmlpl_PL
dc.referencesSinclair, J. (2003a). Corpus processing. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), A Practical Guide to Lexicography (pp. 179–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSinclair, J. (2003b). Reading Concordances: An Introduction. London: Pearson Longman.pl_PL
dc.referencesSinclair, J. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesSinclair, J. (2005). Corpus and Text — Basic Principles. In W. Martin (Ed.), Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxbow Books.pl_PL
dc.referencesSingh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2010). Simulating Motion in Figurative Language Comprehension. The Open Neuroimaging Journal, 4, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874440001004010046pl_PL
dc.referencesSlack, J., & van der Zee, E. (2003). The Representation of Direction in Language and Space. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (1987). Thinking for Speaking. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 435–445). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (1996a). From “though and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (1996b). Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (1997). Mind, Code, and Text. In J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 157–192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (2004). The Many Ways to Search for a Frog: Linguistic Typology and the Expression of Motion Events. In S. Strömqvist & L. T. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives (pp. 219–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (2005). Relating Narrative Events in Translation. In D. D. Ravid & H. B.-Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on Language and Language Development (pp. 115–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 59–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. (2009). Relations between Paths of Motion and Paths of Vision. In V. C. Mueller Gathercole (Ed.), Routes to Language: Studies in Honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 197–222). New York: Psychology Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to Movement in Spoken and Signed Languages. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore (pp. 487–505). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kopecka, A., & Majid, A. (2014). Manners of human gait: A crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0061pl_PL
dc.referencesSlowik, E. (2017). Descartes’ Physics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved on 11.04.2018 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/descartes-physics/pl_PL
dc.referencesSmart, J. J. C. (Ed.). (1964). Problems of Space and Time. New York: Macmillan.pl_PL
dc.referencesSmilek, D., Callejas, A., Dixon, M. J., & Merikle, P. M. (2007). Ovals of time: Time-space associations in synaesthesia. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.013pl_PL
dc.referencesSnell-Hornby, M. (1983). Verb-descriptivity in German and English: A contrastive study in semantic fields. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.pl_PL
dc.referencesSolstad, T., & Bott, O. (2017). Causality and Causal Reasoning in Natural Language. In M. Waldmann (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning (pp. 619–644). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSorabji, R. (1988). Matter, Space and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel. London: Duckworth.pl_PL
dc.referencesSpivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65(4), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260100059pl_PL
dc.referencesSrinivasan, M., & Carey, S. (2010). The long and the short of it: On the nature and origin of functional overlap between representations of space and time. Cognition, 116(2), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.005pl_PL
dc.referencesStanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The Effect of Implied Orientation Derived from Verbal Context on Picture Recognition. Psychological Science, 12(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00326pl_PL
dc.referencesStefanowitsch, A., & Rohde, A. (2004). The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation (pp. 249–267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesSteinman, R. M., Pizlo, Z., & Pizlo, F. J. (2000). Phi is not beta, and why Wertheimer’s discovery launched the Gestalt revolution. Vision Research, 40(17), 2257–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00086-9pl_PL
dc.referencesStewart, D. (2010). Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. New York: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesStocker, K. (2014). The Theory of Cognitive Spacetime. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(2), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.889991pl_PL
dc.referencesStocker, K. (2015). Toward an Embodied Cognitive Semantics. Cognitive Semantics, 1(2), 178–212. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00102002pl_PL
dc.referencesStockwell, P. (2016). Cognitive stylistics. In R. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity (pp. 218–230). London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesStosic, D., & Sarda, L. (2009). The many ways to be located: The expression of fictive motion in French and Serbian. In M. B. Vukanović & L. G. Grmuša (Eds.), Space and Time in Language and Literature (pp. 39–60). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.pl_PL
dc.referencesStosic, D., Fagard, B., Sarda, L., & Colin, C. (2015). Does the road go up the mountain? Fictive motion between linguistic conventions and cognitive motivations. Cognitive Processing, 16(S1), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0723-8pl_PL
dc.referencesStubbs, M. (1993). British Traditions in Text Analysis — From Firth to Sinclair. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 1–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.02stupl_PL
dc.referencesStubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stupl_PL
dc.referencesSullivan, K. (2017). Conceptual Metaphor. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 385–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSvorou, S. (1994). The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesSweetser, E. (1988). Grammaticalization and Semantic Bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 389–405). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774pl_PL
dc.referencesSweetser, E. (1997). Role and individual interpretations of change predicates. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and Conceptualization (pp. 116–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSzwedek, A. (2009). Conceptualization of space and time. In P. Łobacz, W. Zabrocki, & P. Nowak (Eds.), Language, Science and Culture: Essays in Honor of Professor Jerzy Bańczerowski on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (pp. 317–333). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.pl_PL
dc.referencesSzwedek, A. (2011). The ultimate source domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.2.01szwpl_PL
dc.referencesSzwedek, A. (2014). The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 342–374. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.04szwpl_PL
dc.referencesSzwedek, A. (2018). Angels and devils lost and regained: A revision of the Great Chain of Being. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny, LXV(1), 3–20.pl_PL
dc.referencesTakahashi, K. (2001). Access Path Expressions in Thai. In A. J. Cienki, B. J. Luka, & M. B. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure (pp. 237–252). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1975a). Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 419–430). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1975b). Semantics and syntax of motion. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4 (pp. 181–238). New York: Academic Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1978). The relation of grammar to cognition: A synopis. In D. Waltz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1978 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp. 14–24). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1988/2007c). The relation of grammar to cognition [First published in 1988]. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader (pp. 481–544). London: Equinox.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1991). Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure (pp. 480–519). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (1996). Fictive Motion in Language and “Ception.” In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2005a). Leonard Talmy. A windowing to conceptual structure and language, Part 1: Lexicalisation and typology [Interview by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.17ibapl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2005b). The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 199–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2007a). Foreword [Comparing introspection with other methodologies]. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. xi–xxi). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2007b). Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description (2nd ed., pp. 66–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618437.002pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2009). Main Verb Properties and Equipollent Framing. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & Ş. Özçalişkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 389–402). New York: Psychology Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTalmy, L. (2011). Cognitive Semantics: An overview. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 622–642). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesTanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863pl_PL
dc.referencesTaylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in Spatial Descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0021pl_PL
dc.referencesTaylor, J. R. (1996). On running and jogging. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.21pl_PL
dc.referencesTaylor, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2009). Action in cognition: The case of language. Language and Cognition, 1(01), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.003pl_PL
dc.referencesTesnière, L. (1959/2015). Elements of structural syntax [First published in 1959 as Éléments de syntaxe structurale]. (T. J. Osborne & S. Kahane, Trans.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesTeubert, W. (2005). My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.1.01teupl_PL
dc.referencesThelen, E. (1995). Motor Development: A New Synthesis. American Psychologist, 50(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.2.79pl_PL
dc.referencesThelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(4), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500750037937pl_PL
dc.referencesTherriault, D. J., & Rinck, M. (2007). Multidimensional situation models. In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher Level Language Processes in the Brain: Inference and Comprehension Processes (pp. 311–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesTognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesTomczak, E., & Ewert, A. (2015). Real and Fictive Motion Processing in Polish L2 Users of English and Monolinguals: Evidence for Different Conceptual Representations. The Modern Language Journal, 99(Supplement), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12178pl_PL
dc.referencesTommasi, L., & Laeng, B. (2012). Psychology of spatial cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(6), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1198pl_PL
dc.referencesTorralbo, A., Santiago, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Flexible Conceptual Projection of Time Onto Spatial Frames of Reference. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_67pl_PL
dc.referencesTraugott, E. C. (1989). On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/414841pl_PL
dc.referencesTraugott, E. C. (2006). Semantic Change: Bleaching, Strengthening, Narrowing, Extension. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Second Edition (pp. 124–131). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01105-6pl_PL
dc.referencesTraugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–74). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.pl_PL
dc.referencesTrojszczak, M. (2016). Metaphorical reification of mind in linguistic representations. A cognitive study based on Polish and English corpora (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Łódź, Łódź.pl_PL
dc.referencesTsujimura, N. (2001). A constructional approach to stativity in Japanese. Studies in Language, 25(3), 601–629. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.3.07tsupl_PL
dc.referencesTummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225pl_PL
dc.referencesTurner, M. (2007). Conceptual Integration. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 377–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought (pp. 79–112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B. (2002). What do Sketches Say about Thinking? In D. Randall, L. James, & S. Tom (Eds.), Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents: Papers from 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium (pp. 140–147). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B. (2003). Structures Of Mental Spaces: How People Think About Space. Environment & Behavior, 35(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502238865pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial Reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 209–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B. (2009). Spatial Cognition: Embodied and Situated. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 201–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B. (2011). Visualizing Thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01113.xpl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110(1), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008pl_PL
dc.referencesUgaglia, M. (2016). The Actuality of the Movable (by the Mover): A Relational Interpretation of Aristotle’s Definition of Motion. Rhizomata, 4(2), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2016-0012pl_PL
dc.referencesvan der Zee, E., & Slack, J. (Eds.). (2003). Representing Direction in Language and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesvan der Zee, E., Nikanne, U., & Sassenberg, U. (2010). Grain levels in English path curvature descriptions and accompanying iconic gestures. Journal of Spatial Information Science, (1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2010.1.7pl_PL
dc.referencesVandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157pl_PL
dc.referencesVendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160.pl_PL
dc.referencesVendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesVerkuyl, H. J. (1993). A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction Between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesVulchanova, M., Martinez, L., & Vulchanov, V. (2012). Distinctions in the linguistic encoding of motion: Evidence from a free naming task. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion Encoding in Language and Space (pp. 11–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesVulchanova, M., & van der Zee, E. (Eds.). (2013). Motion encoding in language and space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWagner, M. (2006). The Geometries of Visual Space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2005). Typologia korpusów oraz warsztat informatyczny lingwistyki korpusowej [Corpus typology and the computational workshop of corpus linguistics]. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Podstawy językoznawstwa korpusowego (pp. 27–41). Łódź: Łódź University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2014a). Atemporality of Coextension Paths. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Kosecki (Eds.), Time and Temporality in Language and Human Experience (pp. 103–119). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2014b). Complementarity of Space and Time in Distance Representations: A Cognitive Corpus-based Study, 2nd Ed. Łódź: Łódź University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2015a). Application of conceptual conditions for translation of fictive motion. In P. Pietrzak & M. Deckert (Eds.), Constructing Translation Competence (pp. 75–89). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2015b). Instrumentality of fictive motion in coextension paths. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny, 62(1), 87–103.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2016a). Construal in approximations of caused-motion patterns. In D. Gonigroszek & A. Stanecka (Eds.), Philological Studies: Interdisciplinary and Multidimensional Approaches (pp. 67–83). Piotrków Trybunalski: Naukowe Wydawnictwo Piotrkowskie.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2016b). How to sneeze off papers from the desk in Polish translation: Re-conceptualization and approximation at work. In Ł. Bogucki, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Translation and Meaning. New Series, Vol. 2, Pt. 1 (pp. 85–105). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2017a). Fictive motion expressions that encode the source and goal of motion in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 01/JTW/2017). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31640.44806pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2017b). Unbounded path verbs in fictive motion in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 02/JTW/2017). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21574.11843pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2017c). Relations of routing (cross and pass) in coextension paths in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 03/JTW/2017). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33318.16966pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2017d). Chase and accompany verbs in fictive motion expressions in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 04/JTW/2017). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29962.72649pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2017e). Deictic verbs of motion in coextension paths in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 05/JTW/2017). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36673.61284pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2018a). Verbs of rolling in coextension path expressions in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 01/JTW/2018). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30277.29925pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2018b). Verbs of walking in fictive motion in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 02/JTW/2018). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26921.85607pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2018c). Verbs of running in fictive motion expressions in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 03/JTW/2018). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33632.74242pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2018d). Fictive motion expressions including verbs of unsteady movement in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 04/JTW/2018). Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17694.38729pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T. (2018e). Instrumental motion verbs in coextension path expressions in the British National Corpus (PELCRA Research Report No. 05/JTW/2018) [Data first published in 2013 as COST TIMELY Research Report No. 06/2013]. Łódź: University of Łódź. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32793.88169pl_PL
dc.referencesWaliński, J. T., & Pęzik, P. (2007). Web access interface to the PELCRA referential corpus of Polish. In J. T. Waliński, K. Kredens, & S. Goźdź-Roszkowski (Eds.), Corpora and ICT in Language Studies (pp. 65–86). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesWallentin, M., Østergaard, S., Lund, T. E., Østergaard, L., & Roepstorff, A. (2005). Concrete spatial language: See what I mean? Brain and Language, 92(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.06.106pl_PL
dc.referencesWalsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002pl_PL
dc.referencesWarglien, M., Gärdenfors, P., & Westera, M. (2012). Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics, 38(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2012-0010pl_PL
dc.referencesWertheimer, M. (1912). Experimentelle Studien über das Sehen von Bewegung [Experimental Studies in the Perception of Movement]. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 61, 161–265.pl_PL
dc.referencesWheeler, J. A., & Ford, K. W. (2010). Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.pl_PL
dc.referencesWhorf, B. L. (1939/1956a). The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language [Written in 1939]. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 134–159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWhorf, B. L. (1940/1956b). Science and Linguistics [Written in 1940]. In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 207–219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWilkins, D. P., & Hill, D. (1995). When ˝go˝ means ˝come˝: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2–3), 209–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2-3.209pl_PL
dc.referencesWilks, Y. (1975). Preference semantics. In E. L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of Natural Language (pp. 329–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897696.022pl_PL
dc.referencesWilliams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic Adjectives: A Possible Law of Semantic Change. Language, 52(2), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/412571pl_PL
dc.referencesWilliams, R. F. (2004). Making meaning from a clock: Material artifacts and conceptual blending in time-telling instruction. (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of California, San Diego.pl_PL
dc.referencesWilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322pl_PL
dc.referencesWilson, R. A., & Foglia, L. (2015). Embodied Cognition. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015). Retrieved on 21.09.2017 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/pl_PL
dc.referencesWinter, B., & Bergen, B. K. (2012). Language comprehenders represent object distance both visually and auditorily. Language and Cognition, 4(01), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2012-0001pl_PL
dc.referencesWinterboer, A., Tenbrink, T., & Moratz, R. (2013). Spatial directionals for robot navigation. In M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Motion Encoding in Language and Space (pp. 84–101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). Philosophical Investigations, Rev. 4th Ed. [Philosophische Untersuchungen, first published, posthumously, in 1953]. (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.pl_PL
dc.referencesWoelert, P. (2011). Human cognition, space, and the sedimentation of meaning. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9153-3pl_PL
dc.referencesWolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.104pl_PL
dc.referencesWychorska, E. (2014). Abstract vs concrete: Contrastive analysis of the conceptualization of stillness and motion in Polish and English. In K. Rudnicka-Szozda & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Making (pp. 349–360). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.pl_PL
dc.referencesWynne, M. (2008). Searching and concordancing. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 1 (pp. 708–737). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesYang, J. (2014). The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 35(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22160pl_PL
dc.referencesYaxley, R. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2007). Simulating visibility during language comprehension. Cognition, 105(1), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.003pl_PL
dc.referencesYeh, W., & Barsalou, L. W. (2006). The Situated Nature of Concepts. The American Journal of Psychology, 119(3), 349. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445349pl_PL
dc.referencesZacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.3pl_PL
dc.referencesZipf, G. K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.pl_PL
dc.referencesZlatev, J. (2007). Spatial Semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesZlatev, J. (2015). Cognitive Semiotics. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics (pp. 1043–1067). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_47pl_PL
dc.referencesZlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & David, C. (2010). Translocation, language and the categorization of experience. In V. Evans & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions (pp. 389–418). London: Equinox.pl_PL
dc.referencesZlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & Magnusson, U. (2012). Metaphor and subjective experience: A study of motion-emotion metaphors in English, Swedish, Bulgarian, and Thai. In A. Foolen, U. M. Lüdtke, T. P. Racine, & J. Zlatev (Eds.), Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. (pp. 423–450). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesZlatev, J., & Yangklang, P. (2004). A Third Way to Travel: The Place of Thai in Motion-Event Typology. In S. Strömqvist & L. T. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives (pp. 159–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 44 (pp. 35–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A. (2008). Time in Language, Situation Models, and Mental Simulations. In P. Indefrey & M. Gullberg (Eds.), Time to Speak: Cognitive and Neural Prerequisites for Time in Language (pp. 13–26). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A., & Pecher, D. (2012). Revisiting Mental Simulation in Language Comprehension: Six Replication Attempts. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051382pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28(4), 611–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.03.004pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language Comprehenders Mentally Represent the Shapes of Objects. Psychological Science, 13(2), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00430pl_PL
dc.referencesZwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, Acting, Understanding: Motor Resonance in Language Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1pl_PL
dc.referencesZwarts, J. (2003). Vectors across Spatial Domains: From Place to Size, Orientation, Shape, and Parts. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space (pp. 39–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesZwarts, J. (2004). Competition between word meanings: The polysemy of (a)round. In C. Meier & M. Weisgerber (Eds.), Proceedings of sub8-Sinn und Bedeutung (pp. 349–360). Konstanz: University of Konstanz Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.pl_PL
dc.referencesZwarts, J. (2008). Aspects of a typology of direction. In S. D. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesZwarts, J. (2017). Spatial semantics: Modeling the meaning of prepositions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(5), e12241. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12241pl_PL
dc.referencesZwarts, J., & Gärdenfors, P. (2016). Locative and Directional Prepositions in Conceptual Spaces: The Role of Polar Convexity. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 25(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-015-9224-5pl_PL
dc.referencesChaucer, G. (1387/1997). The Man of Law's Tale [Written c. 1387]. In S. Kökbugur (Ed.), The Canterbury Tales and Other Works by Geoffrey Chaucer. Librarius. Available at: www.librarius.compl_PL
dc.referencesGervais, R. (Producer & Director), & Robinson, M. (Director). (2009). The Invention of Lying [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros.pl_PL
dc.referencesShakespeare, W. (1603/1966). Hamlet, Prince of Denmark [First printed in 1603]. In W. J. Craig (Ed.), The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesShakespeare, W. (1623/1966). The Tragedy of Macbeth [First printed in 1623]. In W. J. Craig (Ed.), The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. London: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTolkien, J. R. R. (1954/2012). The Fellowship of the Ring. New York: Del Rey.pl_PL
dc.referencesTolkien, J. R. R. (1954/2012). La comunidad del Anillo. (Luis Domènech, Spanish Trans.). Mexico: Editorial Planeta Mexicana.pl_PL
dc.referencesBNC. (2001). The British National Corpus [World Edition] Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services. Available from OUCS at: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.ukpl_PL
dc.referencesGoogle Books Ngram Viewer. (2013). Mountain View, CA: Google LLC. Available at: https://books.google.com/ngrams/pl_PL
dc.referencesOxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Version 4.0. (2009). [CD-ROM]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesSlopeQ for the BNC. (2017). A part-of-speech-sensitive search engine with support for proximity queries for the British National Corpus data. A general description of the SlopeQ query syntax can be found at: http://pelcra.pl/docs/doku.php?id=slopeq_for_bncpl_PL
dc.referencesVerbNet 3.2. (2013). A class-based verb lexicon with mappings to other lexical resources. The unified verb index accessible from: http://verbs.colorado.edu/verb-index/pl_PL
dc.referencesWordNet Online Search 3.1. (2010). A lexical database for English. Princeton: Princeton University. Available at: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnpl_PL
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/8142-382-3


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
OKLADKA_krzywe_DRUK.jpg
Rozmiar:
534.3KB
Format:
Obraz JPEG
Oglądaj/Otwórz
Thumbnail
Nazwa:
Verbs in Fictive Motion e-BOOK.pdf
Rozmiar:
6.570MB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz
Thumbnail
Nazwa:
license_rdf
Rozmiar:
811bajtów
Format:
application/rdf+xml
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Polska