Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 1840
References
Barcelona, A.
2009Motivation of construction meaning and form: The role of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(Eds.) 2011Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D.
2001Setting syntactic parameters. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (730–767). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L.
2005Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Kay, P.
1997Constructional modus tollens and level of conventionality. In P. Kay, Words and the grammar of context (171–188). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kay, P. C., & Fillmore, Ch. J.
1999Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language , 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H.
2015What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 148–180.Google Scholar
Morgan, J.
1978Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics [Syntax and Semantics 9] (261–280). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
2005aInaugural lecture: Metonymic reasoning inside and outside language. In A. Makkai, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS FORUM XXXI: Interconnections (13–32). Houston: The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States: Houston.Google Scholar
2005bThe role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32] (353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2006Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives [Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 1] (147–185). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009Grammatische versus konzeptuelle Kongruenz. Oder: Wann siegt das natürliche Geschlecht? In R. Brdar-Szabó, E. Komlósi, & A. Péteri (Eds.), An der Grenze zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik [Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft International 3] (67–86). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang,Google Scholar
2013Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
1998A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999aCoercion and metonymy: The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language [Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 1] (37–52). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1999bThe POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALTIY metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003aIntroduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] (1–20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003bMetonymies as natural inference schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] (127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. metaphorik.de, 6, 91–116. (Published on-line at: [URL])
2005aInference in the construction of meaning: The role of conceptual metonymy. In E. Górska, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (37–57). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
2005bMotivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive-linguistic approach, In K. Nikiforidou, S. Marmaridou, & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century [Trends in Linguistics] (53–76). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009bIntroduction: On figuration in grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25] (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. In Brdar, Mario, Milena Žic Fuchs, & Stefan T. Gries (Eds.), Converging and Diverging Tendencies in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 32]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Antonymy in language structure and use. In Brdar, Mario, Ida Raffaelli, & Milena Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Between Universality and Variation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 161–188.Google Scholar
2014Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 168–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming a. The role of inferencing in two expressive speech act constructions. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, P. Pérez-Sobrino, & A. Luzondo-Oyón Eds. Constructing families of constructions Human Cognitive Processing Amsterdam & Philadelphia Benjamins
Forthcoming b. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In A. Barcelona, O. Blanco-Carrrion, & R. Pannain Eds. The ubiquity of conceptual metonymy: From morpheme to discourse Human Cognitive Processing Amsterdam & Philadelphia Benjamins
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
2014Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 45]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1975Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts [Syntax and Semantics 3] (59–82). New York; Academic Press.Google Scholar
Siemund, P.
2014Exclamative sentences in English: Between grammar and usage. Ms.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
1997Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (205–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voßhagen, C.
1999Opposition as a metonymic principle. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (289–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2017. Chapter 9. Irony has a metonymic basis. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1],  pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.