The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 12

language processing (Vol. 3, pp. 151-175).The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. (2004). The ecology of constructions. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Cognitive
For each chapter, Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
linguistics research: Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 50-73).helpful back matter includes a

list of
Taylor, J. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the brain. Oxford, England: Oxford
references, suggested further reading, and notes.

University Press.

Thompson, B. (1992). Of: Common, Complex, and ? Definable (Unpublished independent professional
project). School for International Training, Brattleboro, VT.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and
odaka, Y. (1996). Between and among: A data-based analysis. Word, 47(1), 14-40.
written English. Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal,
cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
52(3), 197-204.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over. In
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 425 million words, 1990-present.
M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language
Retrieved from
teaching (pp. 257-280). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deane, P. D. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe &
Vandeloise, C. (2003). Containment, support, and linguistic relativity. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J.
J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235-284). Berlin,
R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 393-425). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English
Yule, G. (1998). Explaining English grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (Ed.). (1993). The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language
language processing: Natural language processing (Vol. 3, pp. 73-97). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de
Gruyter. Natural language processing (Vol. 3). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory
(pp. 1-90). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

SUGGESTIONS FOR H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Francis, W. N., & Kuc
Frodesen, J., & Eyring, J.English prepositions in addition to those cited above,4see: ed.). Boston, MA:
For linguistic analyses of (2007). Grammar dimensions: Form, meaning, and use (4th
Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Beitel, D. A., Gibbs, R. W., & Sanders, P. (2001). The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial
Jackendoff, teaching suggestions, &
Forpreposition(2008).H. Cuyckenssee:B. Zawada (Eds.),and its theoretical challenges. Language, 84(1), 8-28.
specific R. on. In Construction after construction Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from
Kennedy, G. (1990). Collocations: Where (2007). Grammar dimensions: Form, meet. In S. AnivanJohn ed.).
the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 241-260). Amsterdam, Netherlands: (Ed.),
Badalamenti, V., & Henner-Stanchina, C. grammar and vocabulary teaching meaning, and use 1 (4th
Language teaching methodology Learning.
Benjamins. Heinle, Cengagefor the nineties (pp. 212-229). Singapore: RELC.
Boston, MA:
Kennedy, (2008). Grammar and through: The thesis). University and the functions they serve. Learning.
Brugman, G. (1991). Between connection: Structure through they keep Boston, MA: Berkeley, CA. LaterK.
Firsten, R.C. (1981). The story of over (Master's company content 2.of California, Heinle, CengageIn
Aijmer & in 1988 as The story English Polysemy, semantics, 95-110). London, England: Longman.
published B. Altenberg (Eds.), of over: corpus linguistics (pp.meaning, and use 4 (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Frodesen, J., & Eyring, J. (2007). Grammar dimensions: Form, and the structure of the lexicon.Boston, MA:
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Heinle, Cengage Learning.

Herskovits,& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: TheBoston, MA: Heinle,in English.
Lakoff, G., J. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions Cengage
O' Sullivan,A. K. (2007). Grammar connection: Structure through content 1. University of Chicago Press.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lam, Y. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language
Rauh, G.R. (with Gordon, D.). (2012). GrammarTübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Awareness, 18(1), 2-18.
Reppen, (Ed.). (1991). Approaches to prepositions. and beyond 1. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), 1). Stanford, CA:
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Theoretical prerequisites Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. Spatial orientation:
Theory, research, and Press.
Stanford University application (pp. 225-282). New York, NY: Plenum Press.




Taylor, J. (1988). (2008). The relevance of categories: English and Italian. pedagogy. In S. De (Ed.), Topics
Langacker, R. W.Contrasting prepositionalcognitive grammar for languageIn B. Rudzka-OstynKnop & T.
in cognitive (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: John Benjamins.
De Rycker linguistics (pp. 299-326). Amsterdam, Netherlands:A Volume in Honour of René Dirven
(pp. 7-35). Berlin, on collocations, see:de Gruyter.
For helpful resources Germany: Mouton
1. O'Dowd (1994), noting that we can't use out alone as a source preposition-that is, to mean "from"
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50(3), 225-236. preposition.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An Academic Formulas List (AFL). Applied Linguistics, 31(4),
(*I took it out the box)-argues that the sequence out of is actually a particle followed by a discussing English in the next chapter (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Lindstromberg, S. (2010).particlesprepositions explained when we deal with phrasal verbs.
We will
Sinclair, J. McH. (2004).we deal with constructions consisting of verbLondon, England: Routledge.
2. In the next chapter, Trust the text: Language, corpus, and discourse. 1 particle, such as write off, which
Matula, S. (2007).the same as verb 1 preposition co-occurrences, the prepositions on, in, and at in ESL
appear to be Incorporating a cognitive linguistic presentation of but which function differently.
instruction: A quasi-experimental study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University,
3. Some verbs can take an object Np before the preposition, e.g., accuse someone of, charge someone with,
Washington, DC.
prefer something to, protect someone from. Grammar Book
Mueller, C. M. (2011). English learners' knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge
4.based on meaning? System, preceded by a preposition in nondeictic use; for example, in on the last Sunday
these determiners can be 39(4), 480-490.
of the month, last means "final," not the Sunday before the moment of speech. For the same reason, that
O'Dowd,included in Prepositions andis usuallyin English: A discourse-based, unifyingthat Sunday), not deictically.
isn't E. (1994). our list since it particles used anaphorically (e.g., I was ill on account (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
5. Note that the concept of motion or direction is important since home may take the preposition at with a
Rauh, G. (1993). On the grammar of lexical and non-lexical prepositions in English. In C. Zelinskystative verb:
Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing: Natural
Is Jackie (at) home?
language processing (Vol. 3, pp. 99-149). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
also, here and there can take prepositions in other environments:

2/4/15 7:35 PM

Yes. She is (in) there.

6. rauh (1993) notes that indeed it is the prepositions that assign roles themselves and not just that
Chapter 21: Prepositions
prepositions express roles assigned by verbs, as is often assumed.


The Grammar Book - Third Edition

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Grammar Book - Third Edition

Contents of The Grammar Book
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - Cover1
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - Cover2
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 1
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - Contents of The Grammar Book
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 3
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 4
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 5
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 6
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 7
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 8
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 9
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 10
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 11
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - 12
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - Cover3
The Grammar Book - Third Edition - Cover4