S E M I KO L O N - EgernInc

s i d e [ 9 0 ]
A n d e r s S ø g a a r d
Noter
1 Goldberg (1996:32) definerer en konstruktion som “a
form-meaning pair, such that some aspect of
F i or some
aspects of S i is not strictly predictable from C’s
component parts.” Det er vigtigt i den her forbindelse,
at det “uventede” både kan vedrører formen, f.eks.
placeringen af tryk i afledte ord, og meningen.
Litteratur
Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Brugman, C. M. (1981). Story of “over”. University of
California, Berkeley (ms).
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L. (1994). ‘A view of phonology from
a cognitive and functional perspective’. In
Cognitive Linguistics vol. 4, nr. 5. Pp. 285-306.
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language
and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Comrie, B. (1981 [1987]). Language Universals and
Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dewell, R. B. (1994). ‘Over again: Image-schema
transformations in semantic analysis’. In
Cognitive Linguistics vol. 4., nr. 5. Pp. 351-380.
Downing, P. (1977) ‘On the creation and use of
English compound nouns.’ In Language, 53, no.
4. Pp. 810-842.
Dressler, W. (1981). ‘Zur semiotischen Begründung
einer natürlichen Wortbildungslehre’. In
Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft
8. Pp. 72-87.
Dressler, W. (1985). ‘On the predictiveness of natural
morphology’. In Journal of Linguistics, vol. 21,
no. 2. Pp. 321-339.
Dressler, W. (1987). ‘Word formation as part of
natural morphology’. In W. Dressler et al.,
Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (1996). ‘Making One’s Way Through
the Data.’ In M. K. Shibatani og S. A. Thompson
(eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Hines, C. (1999). ‘Foxy chicks and Playboy bunnies:
A case study in metaphorical lexicalization’. In
M. K. Hiraga et al. (eds.), Cultural, Psychological
and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jakobson, R. (1979). Elementer, funktioner og strukturer i
sproget. København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag.
Kauppinen, A. (1999). ‘Acquisition of the Finnish
conditional verb forms in formulaic utterances’.
In Masako K. Hiraga et al. (eds.), Cultural,
Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive
Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Vol . 2.: Descriptive Application..
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Libben, G. (1994). ‘How is Morphological
Decomposition Achieved?’ In Language and
Cognitive Processes, vol. 9 (3). Pp. 396-392.
Niemi, J. et al. (1994). ‘Cognitive Morphology in
Finnish: Foundations of a New Model.’ In
Language and Cognitive Processes, vol. 9 (3).
Pp. 423-446.
Pusch, C. D. (2001) ‘Ikonizität’. In Martin Haspelmath
et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language
Universals. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rohrer, T. (2000). ‘Pragmatism, Ideology and
Embodiment.’ In E. Sandikcioglu and R. Dirven
(Eds.), Language and Ideology: Cognitive Theoretical
Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rubba, J. (2001) ‘Introflection’. In Martin Haspelmath
et al. (eds.), Language Typology and Language
Universals. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). ‘Methodology and analyses of
the preposition in’. In Cognitive Linguistics, vol.
5., nr. 2. Pp. 157- 184.