Unifying TENSE, ASPECT and MODALITY across languages
Cornelia Zelinsky–Wibbelt
Englisches Seminar, Universit¨at Hannover
K¨onigsworther Platz 1
D-30167 Hannover, Germany
cornelia.zelinsky@anglistik.uni-hannover.de
Abstract
This paper computes the semantic rep-
resentation of while as the pragmati-
cally most relevant one which speak-
ers select from a variety of grammatical
constructions in which while may occur
in current English. The semantic repre-
sentation of while provides the condi-
tion for translating it into the adequate
German equivalent. This computation
is implemented in a unification–based
formalism and may thus be applied in a
machine translation system.
1 Introduction
This paper analyzes the semantics of while as re-
flecting the grammaticalization of its TEMPORAL
meaning. While grammaticalization is generally
studied as the linguistic change from more lexical
to more grammatical form and meaning, our in-
vestigation is concerned with the synchronic vari-
ation between lexically autonomous and contex-
tually dependent meaning with the current use
of English while and its translation into Ger-
man. This view on grammaticalization allows
the typological study of a variety of grammati-
cal functions across languages (Hopper and Trau-
gott, 1993, 90). From a typological point of view
we are particularly interested in the persistence of
grammaticalization. In the ideal case we may ob-
serve how different grammatical functions of the
same form are synchronically constrained by their
lexical sources (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 120).
Consider the following cross–language compar-
ison of verbs which express the lexical sense
of a DIRECTIONAL MOTION alongside with the
grammatical sense of the FUTURE:
(1) English: to be going to, to come
(2) German: gehen, kommen
(3) French: ˆetre en train de, aller faire
(4) Spanish: ir a
The lexical meanings of these MOTION verbs co-
exist with the grammatical meaning of the FU-
TURE. The domain of SPACE provides the lex-
ical source of the grammatical domain of TIME
(Bybee et al., 1994, 269). This is an obvious ex-
tension from more lexical to more grammatical
categorization which speakers create by a change
from one domain to another and it is therefore
a metaphorical extension. In this metaphorical
transfer the domain of SPACE provides a model
for the domain of TIME. The periphrastic con-
structions in (1) to (4) provide evidence for this
direction of development, which has been at-
tested for a wide number of languages (Bybee
et al., 1994). Yet, the TEMPORAL sense rep-
resents a conversational implicature of the SPA-
TIAL sense as SPATIAL MOTION logically pre-
supposes EXTENSION through TIME. This gram-
maticalization by metaphorical transfer reduces
the speakers’ reference from reference to SPA-
TIAL AND TEMPORAL DIRECTION to reference
to TEMPORAL DIRECTION. The semantic reduc-
tion strengthens the informativity and relevance
of the TEMPORAL meaning (Hopper and Trau-
gott, 1993, 65). Yet the general semantic schema
of a DIRECTION FROM SOURCE TO GOAL is
preserved in this transfer.
As may be seen with the above given exam-
ples, the same series of semantic transitions or
“clines” reoccur with different lexical units both
within one and the same language, as with the
English MOTION verbs go and come, and across
languages, as with the equivalents go in English,
gehen in German, aller in French and finally ir
in Spanish. These clines are also similar across
languages which are areally and genetically un-
related. The claim is therefore that these clines
are universal and in most cases irreversible path-
ways of semantic change, that is we cannot ob-
serve speakers to be involved in a semantic exten-
sion from the domain of TIME to the domain of
SPACE. This is the universal cognitive principle
of unidirectionality (Hopper and Traugott, 1993,
1,6); (Bybee et al., 1994, 19,300). This paper
will provide a theory about unidirectionality from
the perspective of cognitive linguistics which will
be evaluated and formalized by the grammatical-
ization cline of while. Finally we will discuss
which implications the grammaticalization cline
of while has for a our theory of unidirectionality.
2 Formalization and translation
We will compute the semantic representation of
while as the pragmatically most relevant one
which speakers select from a variety of gram-
matical constructions in which while may occur
in contemporary English. The different uses of
while form a cline from relatively free to bound
meaning. The meanings of this cline are repre-
sented by a componential analysis, which pro-
vides the condition for translating while into the
adequate German equivalent. We analyse the use
of while in terms of several grammatical and se-
mantic components:
1. grammatical categories
2. grammatical domains
3. image schemata which represent domains
metonymically and which are transferred
across domains metaphorically
The semantic representations of while are imple-
mented in a unification–based formalism as in-
troduced by Martin Kay (1985) and may thus be
used in a machine translation system. Accord-
ing to Langacker (1991, 532) the categorization of
an expression’s meaning occurs by its integration
into the contextually related schemata. In this uni-
fication an expression’s meaning is constrained
by the schemata of other functions. The compo-
sition of a composite structure may thus be rep-
resented by a unification–based model par excel-
lence (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 2000). In terms of this
formalism composition occurs through the unifi-
cation of attribute–value structures. At each level
these structures consist of an attribute on the left–
hand side and a value on the right–hand side:
a0
LU V a1
N a2 T A a1 a3a5a4
In this schematic attribute–value matrix the lex-
ical unit LU is the only variable specified by a
simplex value V. The attribute LU is conjoined
by the attribute N, N being paired with the com-
plex value consisting of the attribute–value pair T
A. Integers represent the inheritance from free to
bound categories.
In accordance with Gutt (1991, 189), we claim
that translators produce an equivalent target lan-
guage text by following the principle of relevance.
As communication in general translation involves
the comparison of interpretations as a universal
disposition of human reasoning (Sperber and Wil-
son, 1995, 46ff.). In order to agree in their in-
terpretations, speakers negotiate their mental rep-
resentations by recognizing the relevant informa-
tion with minimal cognitive cost and maximal
cognitive benefit.
3 Clines between grammatical
categories
On account of its intension while is part of a cline
of the grammatical categories from more lexical
to more grammatical meaning in the following or-
der:
N a6 V a6 ADJ a6 ADV a6 PREP / CONJ
Clearly nouns are lexically richer in meaning than
verbs, that is the intension of nouns is lexically
more autonomous, as verbs are contextually de-
pendent on the semantic values of the arguments
which they lexically expect or contextually re-
quire (Langacker, 1987; Gentner, 1981). This
means that the senses of verbs are less constrained
by their own attributes. Instead their attributes
function as variables which unify with the values
of the arguments which provide the gammatical
context.
Psycholinguistics accounts for this intensional
difference between nouns and verbs by the nat-
ural partitions hypothesis about the speakers’
spatial conceptualization. Nouns correspond to
relatively stable concepts and verbs, adjectives,
adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions corre-
spond to more variable concepts. The stability
of nominal concepts results from object perma-
nence. The notion of object permanence has
been introduced by Piaget (1972) as the child’s
ability to represent an object permanently, inde-
pendently of its physical existence. Object per-
manence as a condition for conceptual stability
implies the persistence of the object’s attributes
which are internally cohesive, that is densely in-
terrelated. Furthermore, the stability of nominal
concepts results from external boundedness. All
of these properties adhere less to the concepts of
verbs on account of their contextual variability
(Imai and Gentner, 1997, 193). Verbal and prepo-
sitional concepts have less internal relations be-
tween attributes than nominal concepts. Instead
verbs, prepositions and conjunctions have exter-
nal relations to the parts of speech they interrelate
(Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 1990).
The extensional variations of verbal concepts
explain that they are harder to learn, to remember,
to produce and to comprehend.
The context–dependent concepts of verbs, ad-
jectives, prepositions, and conjunctions are also
less similar across languages than the more au-
tonomous concepts of nouns (Zelinsky-Wibbelt,
1993).
(5) The bottle floated into the cave.
MANNER DIRECTION
a7a9a8
La botella entr´o la cueva, flotando.
DIRECTION MANNER
(Talmy, 1978)
Whereas in English the MOTION verb float ex-
presses MANNER and the preposition into DI-
RECTION, this is reversed in Spanish, where the
verb entrar expresses DIRECTION while the the
adverbial phrase flotando expresses MANNER.
On account of their extensional consistency trans-
lators also take nouns to contribute more to their
interpretation of a text than other grammatical
categories (K¨onigs, 1993, 233f.).
In comparison to verbs adjectives are semanti-
cally even more dependent on the nouns which
they modify and from which they inherit their
specific value. In (6) the lexically vague meaning
of the adjective high is contextually graded on a
scale by the specific size which is a component of
the lexical concepts of heel and tower:
(6) high heel, high tower
To summarize: the contextual and cross–
linguistic semantic variability increases from
nouns to verbs over adjectives to prepositions and
conjunctions (Gentner, 1981, 176).
With the senses of while it is most evident that
they are related in a grammaticalization cline in
the above pathway with the noun at the lexical
pole and the conjunction at the grammatical pole.
4 Clines between grammatical domains
Each grammatical category is organized in a
cline of grammatical domains. Thus the cline
of while may be represented in a semantically
more finegrained way with the comparison of the
different grammatical domains of MODALITY,
TENSE and ASPECT. Bybee (1994, 22ff., 300ff.)
claims this order of domains to be universally
valid by drawing on extensive cross–language
statistical analyses . She also correlates this
cline of grammatical domains with the order in
which the morphemes expressing the domains of
MODALITY, TENSE and ASPECT are arranged
around the verb stem: the proximity of these
morphemes to the verb correlates with the degree
to which they influence the meaning of the verb,
for which Bybee introduces the term “semantic
relevance”. Semantic relevance is also signalled
by the degree of morphologization:
MODALITY a6 TENSE a6 ASPECT
(7) She might be telling the truth.
TENSE ASPECT
MODALITY
The domain of ASPECT most directly influences
the verb meaning by representing the internal
constituency of the situation in relation to the
speech time (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 142ff.);
(Comrie, 1976) and by the morphological fusion
manifested by the –ing inflection of the verb in
(7). The domain of TENSE is less relevant to
the verb as it expresses how the EVENT TIME
is related to another TIME, either to SPEECH or
REFERENCE TIME. MODALITY is even less rel-
evant to the verb, and thus least grammatical in
our comparison, as is evident from the word or-
der in (7) in which the MODAL form of might
is most distant from the verb stem. EPISTEMIC
MODALITY represents the speakers’ evaluation of
the truth of the proposition. DEONTIC MODAL-
ITY represents the VOLITION which speakers im-
pose on the situation expressed by the proposi-
tion.
5 Clines through metonymy and
metaphor
Each grammatical domain is organized through
metonymy and metaphor. Both semantic exten-
sions are two complementary stages of the same
problem–solving activity (Heine et al., 1991, 49);
(Croft, 1993). Metonymy is a semantic extension
within the same domain of discourse:
(8) We had a glass or two.
In (8) the noun phrase a glass represents an ellip-
tical construction of e.g. a glass of wine. In the
discourse domain of DRINKING the two contin-
gent objects glass and wine embody the image–
schema of CONTAINER and CONTENT (Lakoff,
1987, 272f.). (8) exemplifies a metonymic exten-
sion, where the CONTAINER represents the CON-
TENT. Each metonymy embodies at least two
parts of a schema, such as CONTAINER and CON-
TENT.
6 Grammaticalization paths of while
A grammaticalization cline initially proceeds
metonymically by semantic reduction within the
same domain. In this way the TEMPORAL mean-
ing of the noun while has become reduced to the
grammatical meaning of a conjunction within the
same domain. Prerequisite of this metonymic
bleaching is the previous semantic reduction of
the lexical meaning, which is the case with the
noun while. Intensionally the noun while is re-
lated to the vague concept of a CONTAINER in the
domain of TIME. With this lexically vague con-
cept while is very untypical of the grammatical
category of nouns as content bearers within our
cline of grammatical categories. Yet, grammat-
ically the noun while has the autonomous quali-
ties of nouns (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 1988; Zelinsky-
Wibbelt, 1992). It constrains the relational mean-
ings of verbs, it can be determined and modified,
and it can have co–referential functions, as it has
in (9) (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 104):
(9) We waited for three hours, all the while hop-
ing that someone would come and fetch us.
(Hornby and Crowther, 1995, OALD)
In example (9) the quantifying and identifying NP
all the while refers anaphorically to the NP three
hours, which specifies the reference time (REF
TIME) from which the NP the while inherits the
exact measure of its boundary. By inheriting this
boundary, the while functions as the CONTAINER
(CONTAIN) of the CONTENT which is expressed
by the verb phrase hoping that .... The PRO-
GRESSIVE ASPECT (PROGRESS) of the form hop-
ing is thereby bounded to what fits into the CON-
TAINER. This attribute–value representation is a
condition for the corresponding German equiva-
lent Weile:
a10a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11a12
while a2 TIME CONTAIN a1 a3
3 hours a2 REF TIME BOUND a1 a3
waited a2 TENSE PASTa3
hoping a2 ASPECT PROGRESS a1 a3
would come a2 TENSE PASTa3
a13a15a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a16
a8 Weile
By its lexically vague and reduced meaning
the noun while is metonymically related to the
conjunction while within the same domain and
context of discourse. Formally this is illustrated
by deleting the referential functions of the deter-
miner and the quantifier whereby the noun while
turns into a conjunction.
(10) We waited for three hours, while a17 we werea18
hoping that someone would come and fetch
us.
By this formal reduction while has lost all referen-
tial functions, it cannot be determined and quanti-
fied (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 104), nor can it
be modified or have co–referential functions. The
anaphoric reference relation of the NP the while to
the NP three hours has changed to the grammat-
ical relation of SIMULTANEITY (SIMULTAN) be-
tween two situations in TIME as expressed by the
conjunction while. Semantically, while has lost
the iconic function of a CONTAINER. Instead the
conjunction while indexically interrelates other
expressions in the context which provide the func-
tions of CONTAINER and CONTENT. In (10) the
conjunction while relates the nucleus as the CON-
TAINER to the adverbial clause as the CONTENT
(Langacker, 1991, 424ff.). The TEMPORAL situa-
tion expressed in the adverbial clause is within the
scope of the situation expressed in the nucleus by
the predication of the ACCOMPLISHMENT (AC-
COMPL) verb wait and the NP three hours spec-
ifying the reference time. Thereby the reference
time defines the length of the SIMULTANEITY. In
these relations the SIMULTANEITY sense of while
is computed from two conditions: firstly, both
clauses need to express the same TENSE value.
Secondly there has to be partial or complete TEM-
PORAL overlap between the two situations.
Cognitively, the metonymic reduction to the
grammatical meaning increases the schematic se-
mantic structure of while and improves the recog-
nition of the relevant information in the dis-
course domain of TIME. This configuration of
the TEMPORAL meaning of the conjunction while
provides a condition for the German equivalent
w¨ahrend:
a10a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11a12
while a2 TIME SIMULTAN a1 a19 a3
waited
a0
BOUND ACCOMPL a19
TENSE PAST a1 a4
three hours a2 REF TIME BOUND a19 a3
hoping a2 ASPECT PROGRESSIVE a19 a3
would come a2 TENSE PAST a1 a3
a13 a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a16
a8 w¨ahrend
If we compare (9) to (10), we can now locate
while at the two opposite poles of the cline be-
tween grammatical categories: the noun while as
a content word is lexically most autonomous in its
meaning and thus is ordered at the leftmost end
of the cline, whereas the conjunction while is in-
tensionally most reduced and extensionally most
dependent on the content words it interrelates and
thus is ordered at the rightmost end of the cline.
By this metonymic representation the TEM-
PORAL domain is organized in terms of image
schemata in a way which is cognitively relevant
enough for the metaphorical transfer of these im-
age schemata into a different target domain. The
TEMPORAL sense of the conjuntion while is se-
mantically related to two metaphorical extensions
in the domain of MODALITY (MODAL). The SI-
MULTANEITY between two situations is related to
the ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE (ADVERS CON-
CESS) sense relating two antonymous situations.
In (11) while expresses the ADVERSATIVE rela-
tion, in that the adverbial clause asserts the oppo-
site of the nucleus (Heine, 1997, 116f.); (Bybee
et al., 1994, 225). The ADVERSATIVE sense of
WHILE is a lexicalization from the speakers’ con-
versational implicature of an ANTONYMY (Grice,
1975). The SIMULTANEITY between two dif-
ferent situations supports this implicature if it is
communicatively relevant (Traugott and K¨onig,
1991, 201), thereby again strengthening the in-
formativity and the relevance of the conjunction
while. In this metaphorical transfer the abstract
structure of the image schema has been preserved.
SIMULTANEITY is the result of comparing two
situations in the domain of TIME. The ADVER-
SATIVE relation results from contrasting two situ-
ations in the domain of MODALITY:
(11) While this is an attractive theory there is lit-
tle or no contemporary evidence ... to sup-
port it (ICE-GB:W1A-001 # 29:1)
In (11) the conjunction while juxtaposes EPIS-
TEMIC CERTAINTY (CERTAIN) expressed by the
positive mood in the adverbial clause with EPIS-
TEMIC UNCERTAINTY (UNCERTAIN) expressed
by the negative mood in the nucleus. From this
contrast the ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE sense
of while is computed which translates into the
German equivalent obwohl:
a10a11
a11a12 while
a2 MODAL ADVERS CONCESS a1 a19 a3
attractive
theory a2 MODAL EPISTEMIC CERTAIN a19 a3
no evidence a2 MODAL EPISTEMIC UNCERTAIN a1 a3
a13a15a14
a14
a16
a8 obwohl
While the TEMPORAL SIMULTANEITY sense of
the conjunction while may be computed from the
morphological functions of the verbs expressing
the PROGRESSIVE ASPECT and the PAST TENSE
which while relates in (10), the ADVERSATIVE
sense of the conjunction while in (11) has to be
inferred from the discourse coherence relations
between several semantic values imposing con-
straints on each other: the lexical units theory
and evidence intensionally embody CERTAINTY
of knowledge. This lexical value of theory is em-
phasized by the adjectival modifier attractive in
the adverbial clause, while the lexical value of ev-
idence in the nucleus is negated and downtoned
by the modifying adjective little.
The other metaphorical sense of while which
proceeds from the TEMPORAL domain draws on
the scope which the predication of the nucleus
clause has on the situation expressed in the ad-
verbial clause in (10). This is the metaphorical
concept of a CONCESSIVE relation presupposing
a condition.
(12) In a few weeks the Fourteenth Household Di-
vision will be moving from Horse Guards
here to a temporary home at Chelsea Bar-
racks while Horse Guard’s building is com-
pletely refurbished
(ICE-GB:S2A-011 # 101:1:A)
In (12) the COMPLETIVE ASPECT expressed in
the adverbial clause provides a boundary con-
dition for the continuously extending OBLIGA-
TION expressed in the nucleus and thereby in-
duces the CONDITIONAL CONCESSIVE sense on
while, which is translated into German solange
bis. This computation needs even more compo-
sitional work to be done. The REFERENCE TIME
expressed by the PP in a few weeks and the mor-
phological function of will locate the situation in
the FUTURE. The discourse coherence relation
which the verbs refurbish and move adopt in the
respective discourse domain induce the DEONTIC
OBLIGATION (OBLIG) sense on will and the CON-
DITIONAL mood on the adverbial clause. This is
consonant with Bybee’s claim that the FUTURE
is less a TEMPORAL than a MODAL category
with important temporal implications (Bybee et
al., 1994, 280).
a10a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11a12
while a2 MODAL CONDIT CONCESS a1 a19 a20 a3
will be moving a21
DEONTIC OBLIGATION a20
REF TIME FUTURE
ASPECT CONTINUOUS a22
is completely
refurbished
a0
ASPECT COMPLETIVE a19
MOOD CONDITION a1 a4
a13 a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a14
a16
a8 solange bis
In (12) the general image schema is preserved by
the conjunction while in the domain of MODAL-
ITY in two respects: firstly, the CONDITIONAL
CONCESSIVE sense presupposes partial or com-
plete TEMPORAL overlap between the situations
expressed in both clauses. Secondly, the bound-
ary condition of the COMPLETIVE ASPECT is
schematically isomorphous with the scope of
predication, which the ACCOMPLISHMENT verb
of the nucleus has on the TEMPORAL meaning of
the adverbial clause in (10).
The schema of the CONDITIONAL CONCES-
SION sense of while in the domain of MODALITY
is metonymically closely related to the CAUSAL
sense. In the following example the CAUSAL
sense of while may be computed from relating
the CONDITION (CONDIT) expressed in the adver-
bial clause to the CONSEQUENCE (CONSEQU) ex-
pressed by the indirect IMPERATIVE speech act of
the nucleus:
(13) While you’re in the kitchen, bring me an-
other drink. (Quirk et al., 1985, 15.46)
a10a11a12 while
a2 MODAL CAUSAL a1 a19 a3
bring a2 CONSEQU IMPERATIVE a19 a3
be in a2 CONDIT EPISTEMIC CERTAIN a1 a3
a13 a14
a16
a8 weil
The transfer in the domain of MODALITY has pre-
served the basic structure of the image schema.
The DEONTIC OBLIGATION uttered with respect
to the FUTURE in the nucleus in (12) corresponds
to the DEONTIC OBLIGATION uttered in the in-
direct IMPERATIVE speech act of the nucleus in
(13). Moreover the CAUSAL sense of while pre-
supposes TEMPORAL overlap between the CON-
DITION and the CONSEQUENCE. This is to say,
that the CAUSAL sense is intended as a conversa-
tional implicature in (12).
This sense of while is not lexicalized. We did
not find it in our corpus, nor in any monolingual
dictionary. Yet, it is used in contemporary En-
glish and may be hypothesized to be indicative of
the ongoing dynamics of English typically pro-
moted at the colloquial level of speech. In (13) the
informal style becomes evident from the contra-
diction involved in the SIMULTANEITY between
the addressee’s SPATIAL presence and absence.
This non–monotonic reasoning is less typical of
the written medium.
a23a24 a25a26
while1 noun
TIME
containera27
extension metonymy
while2 conjunction
TIME
SIMULTANEITY
progressive, completive
a28
a28
a28
a28
a28
a28
a28a29 a30
a30
a30
a30
a30
a30
a30a32a31
extension
metaphor
extension
metaphor
while4 conjunction
MODALITY
CONDITIONAL CONCESSIVE
obligation, completive
while3 conjunction
MODALITY
ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE
positive, negative a27
extension metonymy
while5 conjunction
MODALITY
CAUSAL CONCESSIVE
condition, consequence
Figure 1: Grammaticalization cline of while
7 Summary
As we have seen the TEMPORAL meaning of
while is presupposed in all grammaticalizations,
except in the ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE sense.
Therefore it represents the prototypical core
meaning from which all other senses derive. The
initial grammaticalization from the noun to the
conjunction is a typical case of bleaching, i.e.
reduction of semantic components whereby the
semiotic function of while changes from an icon
to an index. Yet, the emptying of meaning occurs
in the same domain. Once the minor grammat-
ical category is derived, the grammaticalization
cline continues metaphorically by a shift from
reference to the text world to reference to the
internal cognitive situation of the speakers, i.e.
from objective to subjective reasoning, from the
speakers’ measurement of TEMPORAL periods to
their measurement of EVALUATIVE and ATTITU-
DINAL values (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 2001). Thus
our grammaticalization cline of while starts from
the speakers’ reference to the relatively stable na-
ture of their external environment by lexical con-
cepts. The cline initially increases the textual rel-
evance and then continues to increase the rele-
vance which the text has for the speakers, as rep-
resented in figure 1.
8 Conclusion
We have shown that the isomorphism of image
schemata bears implications with respect to lexi-
cography and translation. By virtue of their cul-
tural independence image schemata may be eval-
uated multilingually. By accounting for trans-
lational equivalents, this contrastive perspective
may enable the verification of universal categories
of human experience. We may empirically repre-
sent the lexical domain by proceeding from the
theoretical hypothesis that the image–schematic
core meanings involved in the speakers’ gram-
matical meta–knowledge structure the whole lex-
icon. This may be further evaluated from a ty-
pological perspective. Polysemous predications,
such as while which may express both the lexi-
cally autonomous concept and the grammatically
dependent relational concept, are a case in point.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous referees
who accepted the paper. For most of the exam-
ples I am indebted to ICE-GB, The International
Corpus of Englishes – Great Britain, Survey of
English Usage, University College, London.

References
Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca.
1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect,
and Modality in the Languages of the World. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Bernard Comrie. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
William Croft. 1993. The role of domains in the inter-
pretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive
Linguistics, 4(4):335 – 370.
Dedre Gentner. 1981. Some interesting differences
between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain
Theory, 4:161–178.
Herbert P. Grice. 1975. Method in philosophical psy-
chology. Proceedings and Addresses of the Ameri-
can Philosophical Association, 48:23–53.
Ernst-August Gutt. 1991. Translation and Relevance.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Bernd Heine, Ulrike Claudi, and Friderike
H¨unnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A
Conceptual Framework. Chicago University Press,
Chicago.
Bernd Heine. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Gram-
mar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Paul Hopper and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Gram-
maticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Albert Sidney Hornby and Jonathan Crowther, editors.
1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of
Current English. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mutsumi Imai and Dedre Gentner. 1997. A cross-
linguistic study of early word meaning: univer-
sal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition,
62:169–200.
Martin Kay. 1985. Parsing in functional unification
grammar. In David R. Dowty, Laury Karttunen,
and Arnold M. Zwicky, editors, Parsing Natural
Language, pages 251–278. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Frank G. K¨onigs. 1993. Text und ¨Ubersetzer: Wer
macht was mit wem? In Justa Holz-M¨antt¨ari
and Christiane Nord, editors, Traducere Navem.
Festschrift f¨ur Katharina Reiß, pages 229–248.
Tampere, Helsinki.
George Lakoff. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous
Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ronald Langacker. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Lan-
guage, 63(1):53–94.
Ronald Langacker. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Practical Applications, volume 2. Stan-
ford University Press, Stanford.
Jean Piaget. 1972. Die Psychologie der Intelligenz.
s’Gravenhage, Holland. (Translated from the orig-
inal La Psychologie de l’Intelligence. Librairie Ar-
mand Colin, Paris, 1947).
Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Greg Leech, and
Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary
English. Longman, London.
Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson. 1995. Relevance:
Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
Leonard Talmy. 1978. Figure and ground in complex
sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, editor, Univer-
sals of Human Language, volume 4. Syntax, pages
625–649. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Ekkehard K¨onig. 1991.
The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization
revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd
Heine, editors, Approaches to Grammaticalization.
Vol. 1, pages 191–251. John Benjamins, Amster-
dam.
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 1988. Universal quan-
tification in machine translation. In Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Computa-
tional Linguistics, pages 791–795, Budapest.
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 1990. The semantic rep-
resentation of spatial configurations: A conceptual
motivation for generation in machine translation.
In Proceedings of the 13th International Confer-
ence on Computational Linguistics, pages 299–303,
Helsinki.
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 1992. Exploiting linguis-
tic iconism for article selection in machine transla-
tion. In Proceedings of the 15th International Con-
ference on Computational Linguistics, 1992, pages
792–797, Nantes.
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, editor. 1993. The Seman-
tics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to
Natural Language Processing. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 2000. Discourse and the
Continuity of Reference: Representing Mental Cat-
egorization. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 2001. A hypertext model
of text comprehension. In Cornelia Zelinsky-
Wibbelt, editor, Text Transfer: Metonymies and
Metaphors, Translation and Expert–Lay Communi-
cation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
