2004
Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This paper focuses on the merits of Dirk Geeraerts in the field of (diachronic) lexical semantics. The article highlights Geeraerts’ work on prototypes and metaphor. Some of Geeraerts’ most illuminating case-studies are reviewed and a number of characteristic features of this part of Geeraerts’ work are identified and presented.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.2.004.HOEK
2022-10-01
2023-01-31
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Dik, S.C. (1977). Inductive generalizations in semantic change. In: P.Hopper (red.), Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics: A festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 283-300.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Dowty, D.R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language67, 547-619.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Geeraerts, D. (1985). Preponderantieverschillen bij bijna-synoniemen. De Nieuwe Taalgids78, 18-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Geeraerts, D. (2009). Where does prototypicality come from? In: D.Geeraerts (red.), Words and Other Wonders. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 27-47.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Geeraerts, D. (2014). Four guidelines for diachronic metaphor research. In: Javier E. Díaz-Vera (red.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures. Perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 15-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Geeraerts, D. & A.Moerdijk (1983). Toetsing van een modeltheoretisch geïnspireerde morfologie. Spektator13, 88-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Geeraerts, D. & S.Grondelaers (1995). Looking back at anger. Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In: J.Taylor & R.E.MacLaury (red.), Language and the construal of the world. Berlin/NewYork: de Gruyter Mouton, 153-180.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Giannakidou, A. (2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In: K.von Heusinger, C.Maienborn & P.Portner (red.), Semantics. Vol. 2. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of linguistics and communication science. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1660-1712.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse processes9(1), 17-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gibbs Jr, R. W., N.P.Nayak & C.Cutting (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of memory and language28(5), 576-593.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in cognitive sciences7(2), 92-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoeksema, J. & T.van der Wouden (2020). On the Dutch temporal adverbial goed en wel. In: E.Tribushinina & M.Dingemanse (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands37, 90-102.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoeksema, J. (2009). The swarm alternation revisited. In: E.Hinrichs & J.Nerbonne (red.), Theory and evidence in semantics. CSLI, Stanford, 53-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kamp, H. & B.Partee (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition57, 129-191.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G. (1982). Categories and cognitive models. Trier: L.A.U.T.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G. (2010). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G. & M.Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Moerdijk, A. & D.Geeraerts (1983). Lexicale semantiek en morfologische betekenisbeschrijving. De Nieuwe Taalgids76(6), 517-531.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Moortgat, M. & H.van der Hulst (1981). Geïnterpreteerde morfologie. Glot4, 179-214.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Odijk, J., G.van Noord, P.Kleiweg & E.Tjong Kim Sang (2017). The parse and query (PaQu) application. In: J.Odijk & A.van Hessen (red.), CLARIN in the Low Countries. London: Ubiquity Press, 281-297.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Peirsman, Y. & D.Geeraerts (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics17(3), 269-316.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Rapp, A. M., D.T.Leube, M.Erb, W.Grodd & T.T.Kircher (2004). Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cognitive Brain Research20(3), 395-402.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: A.Ortony (red.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-324.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In: E.Rosch & B.Lloyd (red.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. WNT = Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (1882-1998), ‘s-Gravenhage/Leiden.
  29. Wouden, T. van der (2020). All good and well. Introducing an objection in Dutch. In: E.Tribushinina & M.Dingemanse (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands37, 135-148.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Zwarts, F. (1995). Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis25(3-4), 286-312.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.2.004.HOEK
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error