(706). Халеева И.И. (ред.). Москва: Издательство Московского Государственного Лингвистического Университета, c. 155-168.
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. An introduction . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Falkum, I.L. (2011). The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy . Doctoral thesis. University College London.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In Metonymy in language and thought. Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, Ch. (1977). Scenes
Publishing, p. 110-125.
Blended classic joint attention. Available at: http://www.redhenlab.org/home/thecognitive-core-research-topics-in-red-hen/the-barnyard/blended-classic-jointattention
Brandt, L. (2013). The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. S.l.: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Burgers C., van Mulken, M. & Schellens, P.J. (2013). On verbal irony, images and creativity: A corpus-analytical approach. In Creativity and the agile mind: a multidisciplinary
. Синтаксис. Морфология. Москва: Наука.
Kearns, K. (2011). Semantics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. In Psychological review, 5, p. 163-182.
Kochergan, M.P. / Кочерган М.П. (1999). Загальне мовознавство. Київ: ВЦ "Академія".
Kroon, C.A. (1998). Framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. In Journal of pragmatics, 30, p. 205-223.
Kusko, K.Ya. / Кусько К.Я. (2001). Фреймові
and management. In Oxford handbook of political psychology . Sears, D.O., Huddy, L. & Jervis, R. (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, p. 394-432.
McLean, K., Pasupathi, M. & Pals, J. (2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: A process model of self-development. In Personality and social psychology review, 11 (3), p. 262-278.
Moffitt, M.A. (1994). Collapsing and integrating concepts of “public” and “image” into a new theory. In Public relations research , 20, p. 159-170.
Pinich, I. (2017). Pragmatics of emotionality in discourse
construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gullberg, M. (2009). Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. In Annual review of cognitive linguistics, 7, p. 222-245.
Handwerker, B. (2008). 'Chunks' und Konstruktionen - Zur Integration von lerntheoretischem und grammatischem Ansatz. In
integration In Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap. Koenig, J.R. (ed). Stanford: CSLI Publications, p. 269-283.
Fauconnier, J. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Ferber, M. (1999). A Dictionary of Literary Symbols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fodor, J.A. (1998). Concepts. Where cognitive went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ford, J. (2012). In a passing meditation on Ray Bradbury's religion. Available at: http
Graddol, D. & Boyd-Barrett, O. (1994). Media texts, authors and readers . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters in association with the Open University.
Hermida, A. & Thurman, N. (2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. In Journalism Practice , 2 (3), p. 343-356. Available at: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/53/2/hermida_thurman_a_clash_of_cultures.pdf
Huizinga, J. (2001). Homo Ludens (A human playing). Moscow: EKSMO-Press. / Heyzing
CF – combining form
CQP – Corpus Query Processor
EFL – English as a foreign language
OED – Oxford English Dictionary
RSC – Royal Society Corpus
SciTex – Scientific Text Corpus
A thesaurus of English word roots. (2014). Danner, H.G. (ed.) Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Amiot, D. & Dal, G. (2007). Integrating neoclassical combining forms into a lexeme-based morphology. In Proceedings of the 5 th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), Fréjus, 15-18 September 2005, p. 322-336.
Ayers, D.M. (1965
Based on original data collected through an online experiment, evidence is provided in this paper that the interpretation of null subjects in a radical pro-drop language like Chinese relies on the topic criterion proposed for consistent and partial pro-drop languages (Frascarelli 2007 and Frascarelli 2018), thereby supporting the theory that the null subject parameter implies an information-structural strategy for interpretation. Nevertheless, radical Chinese shows specificities that must be integrated in this theory for a comprehensive account. In particular, even though silent topic can start chains (consistent with the topic criterion), data show a significant preference for overt and local topics as antecedents. This locality requirement thus integrates phonological visibility in a general syntactic condition (minimal overt link condition), proposing an interesting parallel with the properties shown by partial pro-drop languages (Frascarelli and Jimenez-Fernandez in press). The present investigation also contributes to outline the structural differences existing between adverbial clauses in Chinese, supporting a distinction between central and peripheral adverbial clauses (Haegeman 2012). Specifically, while temporal and conditional clauses show the properties of nonrestrictive relative clauses, this is not the case for concessive clauses, which merged as subordinate clauses in either the C-domain or the high split-TP area. Differences between temporal and conditional clauses are attributed to the presence of an overt operator in the latter, and the pre-matrix position of adverbial clauses is explained in the light of their discourse role as frame-setters (Krifka 2007).