The semiotics of motion encoding in Early English: a cognitive semiotic analysis of phrasal verbs in Old and Middle English

References

Allen, Micah & Karl Friston. 2018. From cognitivism to autopoiesis: Towards a computational framework for the embodied mind. Synthese 195(6). 2459–2482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1288-5.Search in Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben. 2015. Island constraints and overgeneralization in language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 26(2). 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0102.Search in Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben & Adele E. Goldberg. 2008. The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 357–389. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2008.014.Search in Google Scholar

Annila, Arto & Stanley Salthe. 2010. Cultural naturalism. Entropy 12. 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/e12061325.Search in Google Scholar

Barbieri, Marcello. 2013. Organic codes and the natural history of mind. In Liz Swan (ed.), Origins of mind, 21–52. London/New York: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-94-007-5419-5_2Search in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.108.09barSearch in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.). 2015. Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18Search in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.). 2009. The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.108.01barSearch in Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211757Search in Google Scholar

Berntson, Gary G., Peter J. Gianaros & Manos Tsakiris. 2019. Interoception and the autonomic nervous system: Bottom-up meets top-down. In Manos Tsakiris & Helena De Preester (eds.), The interoceptive mind: From homeostasis to awareness, 3–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198811930.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Blais, Mary-Jane & Laura M. Gonnerman. 2013. Explicit and implicit semantic processing of verb-particle constructions by French-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(4). 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000673.Search in Google Scholar

Brentari, Carlo. 2015. Jakob von Uexküll: The discovery of the Umwelt between biosemiotics and theoretical biology. Cham: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-94-017-9688-0Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004Search in Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert, Yuri, Shtyrov & Friedeman Pulvermuller. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115(3). 189–201.10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.004Search in Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames 8(1). 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap.Search in Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert, Ilse Depraetere & Mégane Lesuisse. 2019. The necessity modals have to, must, need to and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames 11(2). 220–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00029.cap.Search in Google Scholar

Carey, Susan. 2009. The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367638.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Dianne Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course, 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Andy. 2008. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Andy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3). 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12000477.Search in Google Scholar

Cobley, Paul. 2016. Cultural implications of biosemiotics. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-94-024-0858-4Search in Google Scholar

Corcoran, Andrew W., Giovanni Pezzulo & Jakob Hohwy. 2020. From allostatic agents to counterfactual cognizers: Active inference, biological regulation, and the origins of cognition. Biology & Philosophy 35(32). 1–45.10.1007/s10539-020-09746-2Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2010. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0018Search in Google Scholar

Cuneo, Nicole & Adele E. Goldberg. 2023. Two measures of backgroundedness: Predicting island effects in English for long-distance dependencies in combination with 10 constructions. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tzrcs.Search in Google Scholar

Da Costa, Lancelot, Thomas Parr, Biswa Sengupta & Karl Friston. 2021. Neural dynamics under active inference: Plausibility and efficiency of information processing. Entropy 23(454). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23040454.Search in Google Scholar

Dagut, Menachem & Batia Laufer. 1985. Avoidance of phrasal verbs – a case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1). 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100005167.Search in Google Scholar

Darwin, Clayton M. & Loretta S. Gray. 1999. Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification. Tesol Quarterly 33(1). 65–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588191.Search in Google Scholar

Delahaye, Pauline. 2019. A semiotic methodology for animal studies. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.10.1007/978-3-030-28813-6Search in Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1981. Aspects of the history of English group-verbs, with particular attention to the syntax of the Ormulum. Oxford University PhD dissertation. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/37801136/SUPPLEMENTARY_6.PDF.Search in Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1985. The origins of completive up in English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86. 37–61.Search in Google Scholar

Depraetere, Ilse, Bert Cappelle, Martin Hilpert, Ludovic De Cuypere, Mathieu Dehouck, Denis Pascal, Susanne Flach, Natalia Grabar, Cyril Grandin, Thierry Hamon, Clemens Hufeld, Benoît Leclercq & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2023. Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 2020. Paradigms lost—paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar, 278–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27.08dieSearch in Google Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar, Petar Milin, Srdan Medimorec & Maciej Borowski. 2022. Behavioral signatures of memory resources for language: Looking beyond the lexicon/grammar divide. Cognitive Science 46. e13206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13206.Search in Google Scholar

Do, Monica L., Anna Papafragou & John Trueswell. 2020. Cognitive and pragmatic factors in language production: Evidence from source-goal motion events. Cognition 205. 104447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104447.Search in Google Scholar

Durrant, Phillip & Alice Doherty. 2010. Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 125–155. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.006.Search in Google Scholar

Elenbaas, Marion. 2007. The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English verb-particle combination. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Elenbaas, Marion & Ans van Kemenade. 2014. Verb particles and OV/VO in the history of English. Studia Linguistica 68(1). 140–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12018.Search in Google Scholar

Emmeche, Claus. 1999. The Sarkar challenge to biosemiotics: Is there any information in a cell? Semiotica 127(1/4). 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1999.127.1-4.273.Search in Google Scholar

Favareau, Donald. 2009. Essential readings in biosemiotics: Anthology and commentary. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-1-4020-9650-1Search in Google Scholar

Favareau, Donald. 2021. Facing up to the hard problem of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 14. 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09461-9.Search in Google Scholar

Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites paradox: The emergence of the Into-causative. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar, 45–67. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27.01flaSearch in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri.Search in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0023Search in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2015. Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18.05friSearch in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2005. A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 360. 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2009. The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Science 13. 293–301.10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2010. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(2). 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2019. A free energy principle for a particular physics. ArXiv. 1–148. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1906.10184.Search in Google Scholar

Fulk, Robert D. 1992. A history of Old English meter. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.10.9783/9781512802221Search in Google Scholar

Garcea, Frank E. & Bradford Z. Mahon. 2012. What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge. Memory and Cognition 40. 1303–1313. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0236-y.Search in Google Scholar

Garnier, Mélodie & Norbert Schmitt. 2016. Picking up polysemous phrasal verbs: How many do learners know and what facilitates this knowledge? System 59. 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.004.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James J. 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this – creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar

Gonnerman, Laura M., Mark S. Seidenberg & Elaine S. Andersen. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(2). 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.323.Search in Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gregersen, Sune. 2018. Some (critical) questions for diachronic construction grammar. Folia Linguistica Historica 39(2). 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2018-0012.Search in Google Scholar

Haeckel, Ernst H. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Erster Band: Allgemeine Anatomie der Organismen. Zweiter Band: Allgemeine Entwickelungsgeschichte der Organismen. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer.10.1515/9783110848281Search in Google Scholar

Heuer, Anna & Martin Rolfs. 2022. Temporal and spatial reference frames in visual working memory are defined by ordinal and relational properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001175.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42. 67–82.10.1007/BF03379873Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & Florent Perek. 2022. You don’t get to see that every day: On the development of permissive get. Constructions and Frames 14(1). 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00056.hil.Search in Google Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginning of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Search in Google Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1994. On phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: Notes on lexis and style. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 129–140. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110879599.129Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmeyer, Jesper & Claus Emmeche. 1991. Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In Myrdene Anderson & Floyd Merrell (eds.), On semiotic modeling, 117–166. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110849875.117Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H. & Elaine Marchena. 1989. AVOIDANCE: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(3). 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100008123.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Nan & Tatiana M. Nekrasova. 2007. The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal 91(3). 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x.Search in Google Scholar

Kessler, Klaus & Lindsey Anne Thompson. 2010. The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: Embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition 114. 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.015.Search in Google Scholar

Khanna, Maya M. & Michael J. Cortese. 2021. How well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predict recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance. Memory 29(5). 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1924789.Search in Google Scholar

Kiativutikul, Choorit & Supakorn Phoocharoensil. 2014. A corpus-based study of phrasal verbs: Carry out, find out, and point out. Language Institute: Thammasat University. https://digital.library.tu.ac.th/tu_dc/frontend/Info/item/dc:95504.10.5861/ijrsll.2014.820Search in Google Scholar

Kóbor, Andrea, Kata Horváth, Zsófia Kardos, Dezso Nemeth & Karolina Janacsek. 2020. Perceiving structure in unstructured stimuli: Implicitly acquired prior knowledge impacts the processing of unpredictable transitional probabilities. Cognition 205. 104413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104413.Search in Google Scholar

Konopka, Agnieszka E. & Kathryn Bock. 2009. Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology 58(1). 68–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Kull, Kalevi. 2018. Choosing and learning: Semiosis means choice. Sign Systems Studies 46(4). 452–466. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2018.46.4.03.Search in Google Scholar

Kull, Kalevi & Donald Favareau. 2022. There is Umwelt before consciousness, and learning transverses both. Biosemiotics 15. 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09513-8.Search in Google Scholar

Leclercq, Benoît. 2022. From modals to modal constructions: An n-gram analysis of can, could and be able to. Constructions and Frames 14(2). 226–261. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21001.lec.Search in Google Scholar

Lindstromberg, Seth. 2022. The compositionality of English phrasal verbs in terms of imageability. Lingua 275. 103373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103373.Search in Google Scholar

Locke, Shannon M., Pascal Mamassian & Michael S. Landy. 2020. Performance monitoring for sensorimotor confidence: A visuomotor tracking study. Cognition 205. 104396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104396.Search in Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas & Ans van Kemenade. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511998447Search in Google Scholar

Lupyan, Gary & Bodo Winter. 2018. Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren’t languages more iconic? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373. 20170137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137.Search in Google Scholar

Mace, William M. 2015. Introduction to the classic edition. In James J. Gibson (ed.), The ecological approach to visual perception. London & New York: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mahon, Bradford Z. & David Kemmerer. 2020. Interactions between language, thought, and perception: Cognitive and neural perspectives. Cognitive Neuropsychology 37(5–6). 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2020.1829578.Search in Google Scholar

Mahpeykar, Narges & Andrea Tyler. 2015. A principled cognitive linguistics account of English phrasal verbs with up and out*. Language and Cognition 7(1). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.15.Search in Google Scholar

McGillivray (ed.). 2007. Online corpus of old english poetry. University of Calgary. http://www.oepoetry.ca (accessed 13 March 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. Forthcoming. Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive: How to make room for the next generation of construction grammarians. Constructions and Frames.Search in Google Scholar

Myers, James. 2012. Testing adjunct and conjunct island constraints in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 13(3). 437–470.Search in Google Scholar

Nekrasova, Tatiana M. 2009. English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning 59(3). 647–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00520.x.Search in Google Scholar

O’Callaghan, Casey. 2019. A multisensory philosophy of perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198833703.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Mick. 2007. UAM CorpusTool software (version 2.8.14.). Available at: http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/.Search in Google Scholar

Pearl, Judea. 1988. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-0-08-051489-5.50008-4Search in Google Scholar

Peck, Russell, A. TEAMS Middle English Text Series: University of Rochester, Robbins Library Digital Project. http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams (accessed 13 March 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1967. Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. [Reference to Peirce’s manuscripts will be designated MS or L.]Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2020. Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar, 141–165. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27.04perSearch in Google Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 2013. On the nature of island constraints I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Experimental syntax and island effects, 64–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139035309.005Search in Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Rodríguez Higuera, Claudio J. 2019. Some challenges to the evolutionary status of semiosis. Biosemiotics 12. 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09366-8.Search in Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2016. Tracking down phrasal verbs in the spoken language of the past: Late Modern English in focus. English Language and Linguistics 21(1). 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674316000095.Search in Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula & María Obaya-Cueli. 2022. Phrasal verbs in Early Modern English spoken language: A colloquialization conspiracy? English Language and Linguistics 26(4). 807–831. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674322000065.Search in Google Scholar

Ruíz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco. 2022. The causal frame as a motivating factor of figurative meaning. In Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann (eds.), Cognition and contrast: Festschrift for Prof. Dr. Sabine De Knop, 37–46. Bruxelles: Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis.10.4000/books.pusl.27817Search in Google Scholar

Ruíz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco & Inés Lozano-Palacio. 2019. Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics 5. 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501006.Search in Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Samuel, Arthur G. 2020. Psycholinguists should resist the allure of linguistic units as perceptual units. Journal of Memory and Language 111. 104070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104070.Search in Google Scholar

Schaller, Franziska, Sabine Weiss & Horst M. Müller. 2016. Pushing the button while pushing the argument: Motor priming of abstract action language. Cognitive Science 45(1). 1328–1349. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12433.Search in Google Scholar

Schuster, Sebastian & Judith Degen. 2020. I know what you’re probably going to say: Listener adaptation to variable use of uncertainty expressions. Cognition 203. 104285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104285.Search in Google Scholar

Sims, Matthew. 2023. Many paths to anticipatory behavior: Anticipatory model acquisition across phylogenetic and ontogenetic timescales. Biological Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-022-00426-w.Search in Google Scholar

Slepian, Michael L. & Nalini Ambady. 2014. Simulating sensorimotor metaphors: Novel metaphors influence sensory judgments. Cognition 130. 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.006.Search in Google Scholar

Smirnova, Elena. 2015. Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18.03smiSearch in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte. 2018. Article emergence in Old English: A constructionalist perspective. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110541052Search in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020. Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27Search in Google Scholar

Speed, Laura J. & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2014. Eye movements reveal the dynamic simulation of speed in language. Cognitive Science 38. 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12096.Search in Google Scholar

Strong, Brian & Frank Boers. 2019. Weighing up exercises on phrasal verbs: Retrieval versus trial-and-error practices. The Modern Language Journal 103. 562–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12579.Search in Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2012. The English verb particle construction and its history (Topics in English Linguistics 78). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Tononi, Giulio. 2004. An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience 5(42). 1–22.10.1186/1471-2202-5-42Search in Google Scholar

Tononi, Giulio & Christof Koch. 2015. Consciousness: Here, there and everywhere? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370. 20140167. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2015. A constructionist approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs. English Today 31(3). 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078415000255.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2016. Working out multiword verbs within an Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar framework. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 1–32.10.1515/eujal-2016-0003Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2017. Applied cognitive construction grammar: A usage-based approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs (and other constructions). European Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(2). 279–314. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2016-0012.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018a. Constructions as triads of form, function, and agency: An agentive cognitive construction grammar analysis of English modals. Cognitive Semantics 4(1). 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00401001.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018b. Exploring attachment patterns between multi-word verbs and argument structure constructions. Lingua 209. 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.001.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019. Taming English modals: How a Construction Grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs. English Today 35(2). 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078418000081.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2020. On English modals, embodiment, and argument structure: Response to Fong. English Today 38(2). 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078420000437.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021a. Applied cognitive construction grammar: A cognitive guide to the teaching of phrasal verbs. Medellín: Self-published monograph. Available at: https://a.co/d/82twqcn.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021b. Applied cognitive construction grammar: A cognitive guide to the teaching of modal verbs. Medellín: Self-published monograph. Available at: https://a.co/d/gtfmymP.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021c. The cognition of caused-motion events in Spanish and German: An agentive cognitive construction grammar analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41(1). 33–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2021.1888279.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021d. Complexes, rule-following, and language games: Wittgenstein’s philosophical method and its relevance to semiotics. Semiotica 242(1/4). 63–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2019-0113.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022a. Metaphors are embodied otherwise they would not be metaphors. Linguistics Vanguard 8(1). 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0083.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022b. The role of semiotics in the unification of Langue and Parole: An Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar approach to English modals. Semiotica 244(1/4). 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0046.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. accepted. Grammaire agentielle cognitive de constructions : Explorations sémiotico-linguistiques des origines de la représentation incarnée. Signata, Annales de Sémiotique.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. forthcoming. A radical embodied characterization of German Modals. Cognitive Semantics.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 36. 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.018.Search in Google Scholar

Vandekerckhove, Bram, Dominiek Sandra & Walter Daelemans. 2013. Selective impairment of adjective order constraints as overeager abstraction: An elaboration on Kemmerer et al. (2009). Journal of Neurolinguistics 26. 46–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.04.001.Search in Google Scholar

Vidunas, Raimundas. 2021. Fictionalism of anticipation. Biosemiotics 14. 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09417-z.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Daniel. 2020. Predictive coding and thought. Synthese 197(4). 1749–1775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1768-x.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Xiaopeng & Ju Wen. 2019. Exploring multiple constraints on second language development of English polysemous phrasal verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics 40(5). 1073–1101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716419000146.Search in Google Scholar