Syntactic Cartography meets semantic maps: charting the polysemy of Italian simple prepositions

References

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2016. The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733287.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Adger, David. 2010. A minimalist theory of feature structures. In Anna Kibort & Greville Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 185–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577743.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511793936Search in Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas & James Pustejovsky. 2010. A type composition logic for generative lexicon. In James Pustejovsky, Pierre Bouillon, Hidehiko Isahara, Ken Kanzaki & Chungmin Lee (eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory, 39–74. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_3Search in Google Scholar

Baroni, Marco & Silvia Bernardini. 2016. Corpus query tools for lexicography. In Udo Heid (ed.), Lexicography: An international handbook, 50–58. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Federica Comastri, Lorenzo Piccioni, Alessandra Volpi, Guy Aston & Marco Mazzoleni. 2004. Introducing the La Repubblica corpus: A large, annotated, TEI (XML)-compliant corpus of newspaper Italian. In Maria Teresa Lino, Maria Francisa Xavier, Fátima Ferreia, Rute Costa & Raquel Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on language resources and evaluation, 1771–1774. Lissabon: European Language Resources Association.Search in Google Scholar

Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L. & Stefan Th Gries. 2009. In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. In S. Moran, D. S. Tanner & M. Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference, vol. 27, 157–166. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Bjelobaba, Saša. 2018. Semantic analysis of spatial prepositions in standard Italian. Zagreb: University of Zagreb. Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Blair, David & Jan Tent. 2015. Feature Terms for Australian Toponymy. ANPS Technical Proposal. No. 2. New South Wales: Placenames Australia. Available at: https://www.anps.org.au/upload/ANPSTechPaper3.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Blair, David & Jan Tent. 2021. A revised typology of Place Names. Names 69(4). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5195/names.2021.2260.Search in Google Scholar

Bottari, Piero. 1985a. Per una ricerca sui sintagmi preposizionali: Premesse storiografiche e critiche. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 48(2). 211–256.Search in Google Scholar

Bottari, Piero. 1985b. Sintagmi locuzionali preposizionali. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 9–10. 141–214.Search in Google Scholar

Bowdle, Brian & Deirdre Gentner. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 1121(2). 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.1.193.Search in Google Scholar

Brala, Marija. 2000. English, Croatian and Italian prepositions from a cognitive perspective: When ‘at’ is ‘on’, and ‘on’ is ‘in’. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Lauren & Elisabeth Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615962Search in Google Scholar

Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Trømso: University of Trømso. Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Casadei, Federica. 2001. Le locuzioni preposizionali. Struttura lessicale e gradi di Lessicalizzazione. Lingua e Stile 36(1). 43–80.Search in Google Scholar

Chung, Edwin. 2011. Semantics representations for spatial expressions. University of Urbana-Illinois, Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Cigana, Lorenzo & Stéphane Polis. 2023. Hjelmslev, a forerunner of the semantic maps method in linguistic typology? Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 55(1). 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2210495.Search in Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi (eds.). 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165815Search in Google Scholar

Coventry, Kenny R. & Stephen C. Garrod. 2004. Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. London: Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203641521Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2008.001.Search in Google Scholar

Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Semantic maps as metrics on meanings. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1349/ps1.1537-0852.a.346.Search in Google Scholar

Damico, Jack & John Tetnowski. 2014. Triangulation. In Craig J. Forsyth & Health Copes (eds.), Encyclopedia of social deviance, 709–721. Riverside: Sage publications.Search in Google Scholar

David, Jaroslav. 2011. Commemorative place names – their specifity and problems. Names 4(59). 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1179/002777311X13082331190074.Search in Google Scholar

De Mauro, Tullio. 2020. Il dizionario della lingua Italiana [The Italian language dictionary]. Milano: Paravia Editrice.Search in Google Scholar

Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.6Search in Google Scholar

Deignan, Alice. 2014. Metaphorical polysemy and paradigmatic relations: A corpus study. Word 50(3). 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1999.11432491.Search in Google Scholar

den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, 74–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

den Dikken, Marcel. 2018. Adpositions and case: Alternative realisation and concord. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 7(2). 39–75.Search in Google Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar. 2010. Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110220599Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. Boston: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language 67(5). 547–619. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. Semantic representation in LCCM theory. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 50–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.06evaSearch in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2010. From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at. In Vyvyan Evans & Paul Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions, 215–248. London: Equinox.10.3138/9781845535032-011Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2015. A unified account of polysemy within LCCM theory. Lingua 152(6). 201–224.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.002Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2019. Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474405232Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvian & Andrea Tyler. 2004. Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of In. In Gunther Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 157–192. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Feist, Michelle. 2000. On “in” and “on”: An investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes. Northwestern University, Ph.D. Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Feist, Michelle. 2006. Where it’s at. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the High Desert Linguistics Society, Albuquerque, NM.Search in Google Scholar

Feist, Michelle I. 2008. Space between languages. Cognitive Science 32(7). 1177–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802152335.Search in Google Scholar

Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin Baker. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–340. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Cristopher R. Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235.Search in Google Scholar

Folli, Raffaella. 2002. Constructing telicity in English and Italian. Oxford: University of Oxford. Doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Folli, Raffaella. 2008. Complex PPs in Italian. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 197–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.120.10folSearch in Google Scholar

Franco, Ludovico. 2016. Axial parts, phi-features and degrammaticalization: The case of Italian presso/pressi in diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 114(2). 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.12067.Search in Google Scholar

Franco, Ludovico. 2020. (Im)proper prepositions in (Old and Modern) Italian. In Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 249–272. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9781501505201-015Search in Google Scholar

Franco, Ludovico & Paolo Lorusso. 2019. The expression of proper locations and beyond: The motion – to and state – in Italian spatial prepositions. Manuscript, University of Florence & University of Pavia.Search in Google Scholar

Franco, Ludovico, Maria Rita Manzini & Leonardo M. Savoia. 2021. Locative Ps as general relators: Location, direction, DOM in Romance. Linguistic Variation 21(1). 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00035.fra.Search in Google Scholar

François, Alexandre. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change, 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.106.09fraSearch in Google Scholar

François, Alexandre. 2015. Temperature terms in northern Vanuatu. In Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm (ed.), The linguistics of temperature, 832–857. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.107.28fraSearch in Google Scholar

Gabrielli, Aldo (ed.). 2020. Grande dizionartio della lingua Italiana [Great dictionary of the Italian language]. Torino: Mondadori.Search in Google Scholar

Ganfi, Vittorio & Valentina Piunno. 2017. Preposizioni complesse in italiano antico e contemporaneo: Grammaticalizzazione, schematismo e produttività [Complex prepositions in ancient and contemporary Italian: Grammar, schematism and productivity]. Archivio Glottologico Italiano CII(2). 184–204.Search in Google Scholar

Ganfi, Vittorio & Valentina Piunno. 2022. Diacronia e sincronia delle polirematiche con struttura preposizionale: un’analisi su corpora. In Emanuela Cresti e Massimo MonegliaCongresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica italiana, 381–395. Milano: OfficinaVentuno. Available at: https://www.societadilinguisticaitaliana.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/025_GanfiPiunno_Atti_LIV_Congresso_SLI.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Garzonio, Jacopo & Silvia Rossi. 2016. Case in Italian complex PPs. In Ernestina Carrilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo & Sandra Pereira (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, Lisbon, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/rllt.10.07garSearch in Google Scholar

Garzonio, Jacopo & Silvia Rossi (eds.). 2020. Variation in P. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Gentner, Deirdre & Phillip Wolff. 2000. Metaphor and knowledge change. In Erich Dietrich & Arthur Markman (eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines, 295–342. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis. 2019. Semantic maps. In Oxford bibliographies in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0229Search in Google Scholar

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Marialena Lavda. 2025. A corpus-based behavioral profile analysis of polysemy and antonymy: The case of the ancient Greek size adjectives Mikrós and Mégas. Folia Linguistica 59(3). 947–977. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-0028.Search in Google Scholar

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata. 2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic: Why lexical constructions are important. Studies in Language 44(1). 27–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18047.geo.Search in Google Scholar

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis. 2018. The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(9). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12270.Search in Google Scholar

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis. 2021. Lexical diachronic semantic maps: Mapping the evolution of time-related lexemes. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11(3). 367–420. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.19018.geo.Search in Google Scholar

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis. 2022. New avenues and challenges in semantic map research (with a case study in the semantic field of emotions). Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. 41(1). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2039.Search in Google Scholar

Gil, Maitê Moraes & Augusto Soares da Silva. 2023. A study on the conceptual structure of the use of prepositions in the complement of goal-oriented motion verbs in Brazilian Portuguese. Cognitive Semantics 9(1). 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10041.Search in Google Scholar

Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Giorgi, Alessandra & Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195091922.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Giuliani, Mariafrancesca. 2013. Una struttura semantica per da (con spunti per la redazione delle preposizioni nel TLIO) [A semantic structure for da (with ideas for drafting prepositions in TLIO)]. In Pär Larson, Paolo Squillacioti & Giulio Vaccaro (eds.), L’Opera del vocabolario Italiano per Pietro G. Beltrami [The Work of Italian Vocabulary for Pietro G. Beltrami], 107–118. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. In Dylan Glynn & Justina Robinson (eds.), Cognitive theory and corpus method, 171–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2016. Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 413–448. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0016.Search in Google Scholar

Grady, Jonathan. 1997. Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 4(4). 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Mouton: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709.57Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon 5(3). 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.04gri.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Behavioral profiles. In Gary Libben, Gonia Jarema & Chris Westbury (eds.), Methodological and analytic frontiers in lexical research, 57–80.10.1075/bct.47.04griSearch in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.07griSearch in Google Scholar

Grossman, Eitan & Stephane Polis. 2017. Polysemy networks in language contact: The borrowing of the Greek‐origin preposition κατά/κατα in Coptic. In Eitan Grossman, Peter Dils, Tonio Sebastian Richter & Wolfgang Schenkel (eds.), Greek influence on Egyptian‐Coptic: Contact‐induced change in an ancient African language, 335–367. Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Group, Pragglejaz. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752.Search in Google Scholar

Hagѐge, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomena to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5634.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Haselbach, Boris. 2017. Ps at the interfaces: On the Syntax, Semantics and Morphology of Spatial prepositions in German. University of Stuttgart dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2023. Coexpression and synexpression patterns across languages: Comparative concepts and possible explanations. Frontiers in Psychology 14. 1236853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1236853.Search in Google Scholar

Herweg, Michael. 2021. Spatio-temporal modification and the determination of aspect: A phase-theoretical account. In Doris Gerland, Christian Horn, Anja Latrouite & Albert Ortmann (eds.), Meaning and grammar of nouns and verbs, 185–223. Mouton: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110720075-008Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames 8(1). 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.05hil.Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jacob (ed.). 1996. Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions. Barlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110908985Search in Google Scholar

Hoelbeek, Thomas. 2015. À travers de? A diachronic analysis of French à/au travers in combination with the preposition de. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 116(1). 55–84.Search in Google Scholar

Hoelbeek, Thomas. 2017. The evolution of complex spatial expressions within the Romance family: A corpus-based study of French and Italian. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004314580Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.1163/9789004373167_003Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Jan, Hermes. 2018. A cognitive linguistic approach to explaining the polysemy of ‘alaā and fiī in Modern Standard Arabic (PhD thesis). Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.Search in Google Scholar

Janda, Laura A. & Olga Lyashevskaya. 2013. Semantic profiles of five Russian prefixes: Po-, s-, za-, na-, pro-. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21(2). 211–258.10.1353/jsl.2013.0012Search in Google Scholar

Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th Gries. 2020. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(1). 145–187. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0080.Search in Google Scholar

Jezek, Elisabetta. 2016. The lexicon: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans, Joseph van Genabith & Uwe Reyle. 2011. Discourse representation theory. In Dov Gabbay & Franz Gunthner (eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 15, 125–394. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-007-0485-5_3Search in Google Scholar

Kang, Yunkyoung. 2012. A cognitive linguistics approach to the semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Washington Georgetown University, Ph.D. Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej. 2013. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12. 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2008.038.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang. 2010. On times and arguments. Linguistics 48(6). 1221–1253. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.040.Search in Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2012. New directions in lexical typology. Language Typology 12(1). 373–394.10.1515/ling-2012-0013Search in Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2022. Semantic maps and temperature: Capturing the lexicon-grammar interface across languages. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 41(1). 125–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2042.Search in Google Scholar

Kracht, Marcus. 2002. On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1). 57–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014646826099.10.1023/A:1014646826099Search in Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought (second edition), 390–437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2Search in Google Scholar

Landman, Fred. 2004. Adjectives and the type of indefinites. London: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759318Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1992. Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements. Leuvense Bijdragen 81. 287–309.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. & Sergio Meira. 2003. Natural concepts in the spatial topological domain-adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79(3). 485–516. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0174.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Zhibo & Juhua Dou. 2023. Lexical density, lexical diversity, and lexical sophistication in simultaneously interpreted texts: A cognitive perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 14. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1276705.Search in Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2009. A model for representing polysemy: The Italian preposition da. In Jacques François, Éric Gilbert, Claude Guimier & Maxi Krause (eds.), Autour de la préposition: Actes du colloque international de Caen [On prepositions: Collected papers of the Caen international symposium], 76–90. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Search in Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 2011. The coding of spatial relations with human landmarks. In Seppo Kittilä, Katja Västi & Jussi Ylikoski (eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles, 209–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.99.08lurSearch in Google Scholar

Lyding, Verena, Egon Stemle, Claudia Borghetti, Marco Brunello, Sara Castagnoli, Felice Dell’Orletta, Henrik Dittmann, Alessandro Lenci & Vito Pirrelli. 2014. The PAISÀ corpus of Italian web texts. In Felix Bildhauer & Roland Schäfer (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Web as Corpus Workshop (WaC-9), 36–43. Gothenburg, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/v1/W14-0406Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, Elliot. 2021. Linguistic representation and processing of copredication. University College London Ph.D. thesis.10.31234/osf.io/yubkzSearch in Google Scholar

Nam, Senghou. 1995. The semantics of locative prepositional phrases in English. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Ph.D. Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo & Joel Nevis. 1987. Inflected prepositions in Italian. Phonology 4(1). 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700000828.Search in Google Scholar

Navarro i Ferrando, I. 1998. A cognitive semantic analysis of the lexical units at, on and in in English. Castelló de la Plana. Ph.D. Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Nida, Eugine A. 1975. Componential analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. Paris: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics 47(5). 1113–1141. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2009.039.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in language: Absolute frame of reference and the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors, 179–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.6.08palSearch in Google Scholar

Perini-Santos, Pedro. 2011. Cognitive analysis on the preposition de in Brazilian Portuguese. D.E.L.T.A. 27(1). 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-44502011000100003.Search in Google Scholar

Piunno, Valentina & Vittorio Ganfi. 2019. Usage-based account of Italian complex prepositions denoting the agent. Revue Romane 54(1). 141–175. https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.00019.piu.Search in Google Scholar

Piunno, Valentina & Vittorio Ganfi. 2020. Synchronic and diachronic analysis of prepositional multiword modifiers across Romance languages. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43(2). 352–379. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00054.piu.Search in Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3225.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 2013. Type theory and lexical decomposition. In James Pustejovsky, Pierre Bouillon, Hidehiko Isahara, Ken Kanzaki & Chungmin Lee (eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory, 9–38. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-5189-7_2Search in Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2010. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Regier, Terry, Naveen Khetarpal & Asifa Majid. 2013. Inferring semantic maps. Linguistic Typology 171(1). 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2013-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Tina Krennmayr & Gerard J. Steen. 2018. DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics 2. 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7.Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Il sintagma preposizionale [The prepositional syntax]. In Lorenzo Renzi, Gian Paolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione [Great Italian grammar of consultation], 507–531. Bologna: Il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar

Romeu, Juan Fernández. 2014. Cartografia minima de las preposiciones espaciales [The minimum mapping of spatial prepositions]. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Rosemeyer, Malte & Eitan Grossman. 2017. The road to auxiliariness revisited: The grammaticalization of finish anteriors in Spanish. Diachronica 34. 516–558.10.1075/dia.16024.rosSearch in Google Scholar

Rothbauer, Paulette. 2008. Triangulation. In Lisa Given (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 892–894. Riverside: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan A., Hans C. Boas & Paul Kay. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based construction grammar, 69–189. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Salvi, Giampaolo & Laura Vanelli. 2004. Nuova grammatica italiana [New Italian grammar]. Bologna: Il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar

Samo, Giuseppe. 2019. A criterial approach to the aartography of V2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.257Search in Google Scholar

Serianni, Luca. 1988. Grammatica Italiana, Italiano commune e Lingua letteraria. Torino, Italy: UTET.Search in Google Scholar

Shieber, Stuart. 1986. An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Gerard. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved!. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1). 26–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste.Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2020. Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas, Sander Lestrade & Christel Stolz. 2014. The crosslinguistics of zero-marking of spatial relations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1524/9783050065304Search in Google Scholar

Stosic, Dejan. 2023. Le paradigm complete de les prépositions complexes en Français. In Dejan Stosic, Myriam Bras, Chiara Minoccheri & Océane Abrard (eds.), Les prépositions complexes en français: théories, descriptions, applications, 19–53. Paris: L’Harmattan.Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33(1). 49–77. https://doi.org/10.7557/12.85.Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Projections of P. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6, 127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, Jonathan. 1988. Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In Brygida Rudzka-Osty (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 299–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.50.12taySearch in Google Scholar

Tenbrink, Thora. 2020. The language of place: Towards an agenda for linguistic platial cognition research. In Westerholt René & Mocnik Franz-Benjamin (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Platial Information Science (PLATIAL’19), 5–12. Zenodo: Coventry, UK.Search in Google Scholar

Tortora, Christina. 2005. The preposition’s preposition in Italian: Evidence for boundedness of space. In Randall Gess & Edward J. Rubin (eds.), Theoretical and experimental approaches to Romance linguistics, 307–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.272.19torSearch in Google Scholar

Tortora, Christina. 2006. On the aspect of space: The case of place in Italian and Spanish. In Nicola Pennello & Diego Pescarini (eds.), Atti dell’undicesima giornata di dialettologia (Quaderni di lavoro ASIS 5), 50–69. Padova: CNR.Search in Google Scholar

Tortora, Christina. 2008. Aspect inside place PPs. In Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Syntax and semantics of spatial P, 273–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.120.14torSearch in Google Scholar

Turker, Emal. 2005. The locative expressions in Korean and Turkish: A cognitive grammar approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Search in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio. 2014. Experimental entailments: The case of spatial prepositions. Nordic Journal of English Studies 13(3). 112–138. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.322.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio. 2015. On the syntax and semantics of Italian spatial Ps. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(1). 63–110. https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.62.2015.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio. 2017. On the polysemy of Italian spatial prepositions. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Gabriele Iannàccaro, Diana Passino & Anna M. Thornton (eds.), Di tutti i colori: Studi linguistici per Maria Grossmann. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio. 2020. General location across languages: On the division of labour between functional and lexical items in spatial categories. The Linguistic Review 37(4). 495–542. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2020-2053.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Nobuaki Akagi. 2013. Another look at spatial prepositions and the modification problem. Iberia 5(2). 38–84.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Adriano Giannella. 2016. On the polysemy of spatial Ps: The case of Spanish. Borealis: An International Journal about Hispanic Linguistics 5(2). 90–150.10.7557/1.5.2.3633Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio, Haiping Long & Yue Sara Zhang. 2022. Polysemy and semantic relations in Italian spatial prepositions: From data to theory. Revista Signos 55(108). 173–198. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-0934202.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Tong Wu. 2024. On Italian spatial prepositions and phrases: Reconciling data with theory. Linguistics: An International Journal of Linguistic Science 62(2). 491–530. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0042.Search in Google Scholar

Ursini, Francesco-Alessio & Yue Sara Zhang. 2023. An account of inter-lexical polysemy in Italian prepositions: The case of per, tra, attraverso. Moderna Språk 117(3). 114–141. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v117i3.10720.Search in Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johann. 2013. Semantic maps, for synchronic and diachronic typology. In Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface, 153–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.133.07auwSearch in Google Scholar

van der Klis, Martijn & Jos Tellings. 2022. Generating semantic maps through multidimensional scaling: Linguistic applications and theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18(3). 627–665. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0018.Search in Google Scholar

Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Verkuyl, Henk & Joost Zwarts. 1992. Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: The notion of Path. Linguistics 30(3). 483–512. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1992.30.3.483.Search in Google Scholar

Vieu, Laure & Michel Aurnague. 2007. Part-of relations, functionality and dependence. In Michel Aurnague, Maure Hickmann & Laure Vieu (eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, 307–336. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.20.18vieSearch in Google Scholar

Voghera, Miriam. 1994. Lessemi complessi: percorsi di lessicalizzazione a confronto. Lingua e Stile 29(2). 185–214.Search in Google Scholar

Voghera, Miriam. 2004. Polirematiche. In Maria Grossman & Franz Rainer (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 56–69. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Waliński, Jacek Tadeusz. 2018. Verbs in fictive motion. Lodz: University of Lodz Press.10.18778/8142-382-3Search in Google Scholar

Wolff, Peter & Dedre Gentner. 2000. Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26. 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.2.529.Search in Google Scholar

Wolff, Peter & Dedre Gentner. 2011. Structure mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science 3512. 1456–1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x.Search in Google Scholar

Xie, Qin, Yue Sara Zhang & Francesco-Alessio Ursini. 2027. Sense relations and polysemy in Mandarin spatial categories: Meaning connections and colexification patterns across the lexicon. Language and Linguistics 28(1). 1–59.Search in Google Scholar

Zamparelli, Roberto. 1998. A theory of kinds, partitives and of/z possessives. In Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates, and movement in the determiner phrase, 222–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.22.10zamSearch in Google Scholar

Zingarelli, Nicola. 2020. Lo Zingarelli Vocabolario della lingua italiana [The Zingarelli vocabulary of the Italian language]. Bologna: French & European Pubns.Search in Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost. 2010. Semantic map geometry: Two approaches. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1349/ps1.1537-0852.a.357.Search in Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost & Yoad Winter. 2000. Vector space semantics: A model–theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9(2). 169–211. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008384416604.10.1023/A:1008384416604Search in Google Scholar