Cover not available
Review published In:
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Volume 1
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1] 2003
► pp. 276–288
Book review

Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & José Luis Otal Campo. Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication [Colección Estudios de Lengua Inglesa, 7]. Albolote: Editorial Comares, 2002.

Reviewed by
 | Hamburg University
Published online: 11 November 2003
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.16pan
References (16)
References
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (Topics in English Linguistics 301). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (Cognitive Linguistic Research 201). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, Compact Edition. (1979). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 41). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (Topics in English Linguistics 301) (pp. 215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (Topics in English Linguistics 301) (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. & Díez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research 201) (pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1970). An historical syntax of the English language. Part one: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar