Cover not available
Review published In:
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Volume 5
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5] 2007
► pp. 307–323
Book review

Radden Günter, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg & Peter Siemund (eds.). Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007. ix+289 pp. ISBN 978 90 272 3242 7 https://​doi​.org​/10​.1075​/z​.136

Reviewed by
 | University of Pavia
Published online: 29 November 2007
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.15bai
References (49)
References
Baicchi, A. (2007). Conceptual integration and translation. In Bertuccelli Papi, M., Lexical Complexity: Theoretical Assessment and Translational Perspectives. (pp. 85–98). Pisa: PLUS.Google Scholar
Benjafield, J. (1996). The developmental point of view. A History of Psychology (pp. 171–193). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Company.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. (1979). Rules of pronominal adjective order, and the interpretation of incompatible adjective pairs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 73–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996). What’s Cognitive about Cognitive Linguistics? In Casad, G. (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods (pp. 27–54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 39–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymies (pp. 123–151). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1988). The Computer and the Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972/1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Phylosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind: Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization: Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2006). Internal and external constraints in meaning construction: the lexicon-grammar continuum. Estudios de Filología Inglesa: Homenaje a la Dra. Asunción Alba Pelayo. Madrid: UNED; in press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cuykens, H., Dirven, R. & Taylor, J. (Eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semanctis (pp. 93–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 151, 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In Liebert, W-A., Redeker, G. & Waugh, L. (Eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [coauthor: L. Thornburg].Google Scholar
(1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30/6, 755–769. [coauthor: L. Thornburg]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Introduction. In Panther, K–U. & Radden, G. (Eds). Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 41) (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [coauthor: G. Radden]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Coercion and metonymy: The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., (Ed.) Cognitive Perspectives on Language (Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 11) (pp. 37–52). Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang. [coauthor: Linda L. Thornburg].Google Scholar
(1999) The POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALTIY metonymy in English and Hungarian. In Panther, K-U. & Radden, G. (Eds.). Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 41) (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [coauthor: L. Thornburg]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In Barcelona, A., (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (Topics in English Linguistics 301). (pp. 215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [coauthor: L. Thornburg].Google Scholar
(2003). Metonymies as natural inference schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In Panther, K–U. & Thornburg, L. (Eds). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 1131) (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [coauthor: L. Thornburg]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, F. J. & Peña Cervel, M. S. (Eds). Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research 321) (pp. 353–386). Berlin York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006a). Metonymy as a usage event. In Kristiansen, G., M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, eds. Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 11) (pp. 147–185). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006b). Metonymy and the way we speak. In Benczes, R. & S. Csábi (Eds.), The Metaphors of Sixty: Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 183–195). Budapest: ELTE. [coauthor: L. Thornburg].Google Scholar
(2007) Metonymy. In Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics [Chapter 101]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [coauthor: L. Thornburg].Google Scholar
Pollio, H., Barlow, J. M., Fine, H. and Pollio, M. (1977). The Poetics of Growth: Figurative Language in Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther, K-U. & Radden, G. (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. (pp. 17–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2005). The uniquity of metonymy. In Otal Campo, J. L., Navarro I Fernando, I. & Bellés Fortuño, B. (Eds), Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, (pp. 11–28). Castellón: Jaume I University.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3), 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivations, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2007). High level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In Kosecki, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy. (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt/M. Peter Lang. (Łódź Studies in Language).Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1956). The philosophy of logical atomism. In Marsh, R. (Ed.), Logic and Knowledge (pp. 177–281). London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. (2005). Covarying collexems. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. K., Pollio, H. R. and Pitts, M. K. (1981). Metaphor as intellectual history: Conceptual categories underlying figurative usage in American English from 1675–1975. Linguistics, 191, 911–935. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimball, J. P. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 41 (pp. 181–238). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1988). Force dynamics in language and thought. Cognitive Science, 121, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Bloom, P., Petersen, M. A., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. F. (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1922). The general theoretical situation. Psychologische Forschung, 11, 47–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2009. Aspects of Meaning Construction. Journal of Pragmatics 41:12 ► pp. 2575 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 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.