/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) cognitive linguistics (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: cognitive linguistics
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines203 - : We have reached many inspiring results in cognitive linguistics, in solving some aspects of Platos problem: How can we know so much, given that we have so little information ? How is it possible that we can construct a world in our mind with only a few shreds of discourse? Our challenge for the years to come will lie in critical linguistics, in solving some aspects of Orwells problem: How can we know so little, given that we have so much information available? The fast growing amount of governmental documentation and in-formation has not resulted in better informed citizens. The activities of news agencies all over the world seem inversely proportional to getting real news to the people. We have so much information -in discourse- about how to work on communication between different cultures and religions, how to solve poverty, how to prevent war, but we do have the same problems, and even bigger ones, than forty years ago. Could it be that we are still pro-ducing discourse in institutions,
Evaluando al candidato cognitive linguistics:
cognitive linguistics
Lengua: eng
Frec: 41
Docs: 31
Nombre propio: / 41 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario:
Puntaje: 0.156 = ( + (1+0) / (1+5.39231742277876)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| cognitive linguistics |
: Coll-Florit, M., Castellón, I., Climent, S. & Santiago, J. (2009). Realidad psicológica del aspecto léxico. Evidencias experimentales. En J. Valenzuela & A. Rojo (Eds.), Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Models (pp. 85-100) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. : Cornillie, B. (2010). On conceptual semantics and discourse function. the case of spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 300-320. : Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending Basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(34), 175196. : Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. : Ellis, N. C. & Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. In N. C. Ellis & P. Robinson, (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3-24).Oxford: Routledge. : Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333378. : Faber, P. (Ed.) (2012). A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language. Berlín, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. : Fawcett, R. (1980). Cognitive linguistics and social interaction. Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University. : Fernández-Silva, S., Cabré, M. T. & Freixa, J. (2012). A cognitive approach to synonymy in terminology. En M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation (pp. 189-212). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. : Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 229-272. : Gibbs, R. (1990). Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417-451. : Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327-356. : Grady, J., Oakley, T. & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphore. En G. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101-124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin. : Ha, L., Stewart, D., Hanna P. & Smith, F. (2006). Zipf and Type-Token rules for the English, Spanish, Irish and Latin languages. Web Journal of Formal, Computational and Cognitive Linguistics, 1(8), 1-12. : Kövecses, Z. & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326-355. : Kövecses, Z. (2008). Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 168-184. : Lakoff, G. (1983). Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics. En Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seúl: Hanshin Publishing Co. : Langacker, R. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143188. : Langacker, R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38. : Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Louwerse, M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315. : Mairal, R. (2015). Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1-27. : Moore, K. E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 199-244. : Nolan, B. (2014). Theoretical and computational considerations of linking constructions in Role and Reference Grammar. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 410-442. : Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. En D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 236-263). Oxford: University Press. : Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2001). Modeling causal and contrastive connectives: On domains, subjectivity and mental spaces. International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Santa Barbara, CA: USA. : Thornburg, L. & Panther, K. (1997). Speech act metonymies. En W. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. : Ureña, J. M. & Faber, P. (2010). Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-resemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 123-149. |