Abou-Khalil, V, Helou, S, Flanagan, B, Chen, MRA, & Ogata, H (2019). Learning isolated polysemous words: Identifying the intended meaning of language learners in informal ubiquitous language learning environments.
Smart Learning Environments,
6(13),
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0095-0.
Allen, W Director (2016). Café society [Motion picture]. United States:Gravier Productions.
Bielak, J (2011). Cognitive linguistics and foreign language pedagogy: An overview of recent trends and developments. In M Pawlak (Ed.),
Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching. pp 241-261. Berlin, Germany:Springer:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20141-7_19.
Csábi, S (2004). A cognitive linguistic view of polysemy in English and its implications for teaching. In MAS Niemeier (Ed.),
Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. pp 233-256. Berlin, Germany:De Gruyter Mouton.
Cuyckens, H, & Zawada, B (1997). Introduction. In H Cuyckens & B Zawada (Eds.),
Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference. pp ix-xxvii. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Evans, V, & Green, M (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh, UK:Edinburgh University Press.
Falkum, IL (2009). A pragmatic solution to the polysemy paradox. UCL working papers in linguistics, 21, 27-54.
Faniran, KF (2016). A critical study of polysemy: A perspective of French language and its parts of speech. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research/Arts, Humanities & Education, 2(7), 7-18.
Kovács, É (2011). Polysemy in traditional vs. cognitive linguistics. Eger Journal of English Studies, 11, 3-19.
Lakoff, G (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G, & Johnson, M (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, RW (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Langacker, RW (1988). Review of George Lakoff: Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Language,
64(2), 384-395.
https://doi.org/10.2307/415440.
Lewis, M (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, UK:Language Teaching Publications.
Littlemore, J, & Juchem-Grundmann, C (2010). Introduction to the interplay between cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching.
AILA Review,
23(1), 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.01lit.
Makni, F (2014). Applying cognitive linguistics to teaching polysemous vocabulary. Arab World English Journal, 5(1), 4-20.
Matsumoto, N (2006). Applying cognitive grammar to pedagogical grammar: The case of “To”. In In : M Nakano & J Park (Eds.), In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics; 116-130. Kangwon:Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics:
http://www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/PAAL11/pdfs/10.pdf.
Mitsugi, M (2013). The effectiveness of core meaning based instruction on preposition choice. Research Bulletin of English Teaching, 10, 1-25.
Mitsugi, M (2017). Schema-based instruction on learning English polysemous words: Effects of instruction and learners’ perceptions on the instruction. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 21-43.
Moudraia, O (2001).
Lexical approach to second language teaching. ERIC digest. Washington, DC:ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455698): Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455698.pdf.
Nerlich, B (2003). Polysemy: Past and present. In B Nerlich & Z Todd & V Herman & DD Clarke (Eds.),
Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. pp 49-76. Berlin, Germany:De Gruyter Mouton:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.49.
Ravin, Y, & Leacock, C (2000). Polysemy: Overview. In Y Ravin & C Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. pp 1-29. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
Selivan, L (2018). Lexical grammar: Activities for teaching chunks and exploring patterns. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, JR (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, UK:Oxford University.
Tremblay, C, Macoir, J, Langlois, M, & Monetta, L (2014). The role of polysemy on metaphor comprehension processing: The example of Parkinson’s disease.
Journal of Neurolinguistics,
30, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.02.002.
Tyler, A, Mueller, C, & Ho, V (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 181-205.
Ullmann, S (1959). The principles of semantics: A linguistic approach to meaning. Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
Vardidze, T (2020). The impact of teaching English polysemy through similarity-based approach.
Journal of Education in Black Sea Region,
5(2), 112-125.
https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.5i2.205.
Veliz, L (2018). A route to the teaching of polysemous lexicon: Benefits from cognitive linguistics and conceptual metaphor theory.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature,
7(1), 211-217.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.1p.211.
Willis, D (1990). The lexical syllabus: The lexical approach to language teaching. London, UK:Collins.