Miscellaneous published in:
Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics
Klaus-Uwe Panther
[Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 4] 2022
► pp. 267278
Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A., Farmer, A. K., & Harnish, R. M.
2010Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. 6th edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aliseda, A.
2006Abductive Reasoning: Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation (Synthese Library: Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science 30). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Allott, N.
2010Key Terms in Pragmatics. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ambler, E.
2001 [1937]Background to Danger. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Ariel, M.
2008Grammar and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Defining Pragmatics (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnaud, A. & Lancelot, C.
1660Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Pierre Le Petit. [Online access: http://​gallica​.bnf​.fr/]
Athanasiadou, A.
2017Irony has a metonymic basis. In: A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston, eds. Irony in Language Use and Communication (Figurative Thought and Language 1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 201–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L.
1961Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1962How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1971Performative – constative. In: J. R. Searle, ed. The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–22.Google Scholar
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M.
1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A.
2012On Acting and Thinking: Studies Bridging between Speech Acts and Cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2015Metonymy. In: Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D., eds. 2015 The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 143–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
2010Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21.1: 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R.
2014Repetitions which are not repetitions: the non-redundant nature of tautological compounds. English Language and Linguistics 18.3: 431–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Rhyme over Reason: Phonological Motivation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, M. & Paavola, S.
eds. 2014The Commens Dictionary: Peirce’s Terms in His Own Words. New Edition. [Term ‘Metaphor’ retrieved from http://​www​.commens​.org​/ dictionary​/term​/metaphor].
Bierwiaczonek, B.
2013Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J.
2013Introduction to Pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borsley, D., & Newmeyer, F. J.
2009On subject-auxiliary inversion and the notion “purely formal generalization”. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 135–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
2017Metonymy and Word Formation: Their Interaction and Complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Broccias, C.
2003The English Change Network (Cognitive Linguistics Research 22). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. & Miller, J.
2013The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G.
1986 The semantics of aux-inversion and anaphora constraints. Unpublished paper: University of California at Berkeley.
Buchler, J.
1955Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Burgers, C., Konijn. E. A., & Steen, G. J.
2016Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 26.4: 410–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, A.
1986Soziale Akte, Sprechakte und Textillokutionen: A. Reinachs Rechtsphilosophie und die moderne Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R.
1993Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
2012Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 469–492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y.
2012Semantic comparison between English -er nominals and Korean -i nominals. Discourse and Cognition 19.3: 297–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1959A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35.1: 26–58.Google Scholar
1975Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V.
1977Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cobley, P.
ed. 2010The Routledge Companion to Semiotics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coetzee, J. M.
2016The Schooldays of Jesus. Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
1988Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. In: S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster, eds. Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 265–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conant, L. L.
1931The Number Concept: Its Origin and Development. New York & London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1995Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71.3: 490–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A.
2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
2006A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
1997The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2008A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R.
2005Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D.
eds. 2015The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B.
ed. 2017The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D.
1978What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5.1: 31–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W.
2014Implicature. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Accessed at: https://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/archives​/fall2014​/entries​/implicature].
Deane, P. D.
1992Grammar in Mind and Brain (Cognitive Linguistics Research 2). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denroche, C.
2015Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G.
2002On the misuse of the notion of ‘abduction’ in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 38: 469–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
2015Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science 19.10: 603–615. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M.
eds. 2004Cognitive Explorations of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O.
1969Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue française 4: 300–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Durkin, P.
2009The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N.
2007Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva, ed. Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Watanabe, H.
eds. 2016Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
2007A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M.
2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1997Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward, eds. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 657–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Faust, M. & Mashal, N.
2007The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: a divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia 45: 860–879. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feist, J.
2012Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1969Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. Papers in Linguistics 1.1: 81–117.Google Scholar
1982Frame semantics. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-81. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
1975Hedged performatives. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 44–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garner, B. A.
2009Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.) St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Frege, G.
1892Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
2010Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H.
eds. 2007The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geis, M. L. & Zwicky, A. M.
1971On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2.4: 561–566.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
Jr. 1994The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jr. 2005Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jr. 2006Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21.3: 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
2002Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34: 487–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
1993English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 3–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A.
1985A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In: W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber & K. Peterson, eds. Papers from the 21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. & G. Lakoff
1975Conversational postulates. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 83–106.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
1997Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. UC Berkeley: Dissertations, Department of Linguistics. Retrieved from https://​escholarship​.org​/uc​/item​/3q9427m2.
Grady, J. E.
2005Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1595–1614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, G.
1989Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A.
2016Le bon usage: Grammaire française. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1975Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 41–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grundy, P.
2000Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
1997Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R.
1988Pragmatic theory. In: F. J. Newmeyer, ed. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. I: Linguistic Theories: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–145.Google Scholar
1989A Natural History of Negation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1991Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Implicature. In: L. R. Horn & G. Ward, eds. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. & Ward, G.
eds. 2006Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.
2007Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jäkel, O.
1997Metaphern in abstrakten Diskurs-Domänen: Eine kognitiv-linguistische Untersuchung anhand der Bereiche Geistestätigkeit, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: LangGoogle Scholar
1999Kant, Blumenberg, Weinrich: Some forgotten contributions to the cognitive theory of metaphor. In: R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen, eds. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 175). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 9–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L.
2013Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn: An Essential Reader. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L.
1971Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 5: 55–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C.
1970Fact. In: M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph, eds. Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, E.
1991The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. & Panther, K.-U.
1989On correlations between word order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 685–711. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Analytische und gestalthafte Nomina auf -er im Deutschen vor dem Hintergrund konstruktionsgrammatischer Überlegungen. In: A. Bittner & C. Spieß, eds. Formen und Funktionen (Lingua Historica Germanica 12). Berlin & Boston, 85–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2005Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G.
1998Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The neural theory of metaphor. In: R. W. Gibbs, Jr., ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (3rd. ed.). Chicago & London: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1999Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
1989More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide To Poetic Metaphor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford : Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000Grammar and Conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research 14). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
2008Cognitive Grammar: A basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009aMetonymic grammar. In: K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona, eds. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 45–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bInvestigations in Cognitive Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H.
1990Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. 10th ed. Munich: Huber.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1983Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, P.
2000Inference to the best explanation. In: H. D. Newton-Smith ed. A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell: 184–193.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
2015Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. & J. Taylor, J.
2013The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lodge, A.
1998Is French a logical language? In: L. Bauer & P. Trudgill, eds. Language Myths. London: Penguin Books, 23–31.Google Scholar
Maalej, Z. A. & Yu, N.
eds. 2011Embodiment Via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures (Human Cognitive Processing 31). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markert, K. & Hahn, U.
2002Understanding metonymies in discourse. Artificial Intelligence 135: 145–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mashal, N. & Faust, M.
2008Conventionalization of novel metaphors: a shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Ms., Bar-Ilan University.
Mazzone, M.
2018Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Consciousness, Inferences. Boston & Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menninger, K.
1969Number and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C. W.
1938Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Murdoch, I.
1999The Sea, the Sea. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
1992Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68: 756–796. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994A note on Chomsky on form and function. Journal of Linguistics 30: 245–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Notley, F. E. M.
1881In the House of a Friend. London: Ward, Lock & Co. Retrieved from: httspgoogle.books.comGoogle Scholar
Nöth, W.
1990Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs Keenan, E.
1976The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5: 67–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paavola, S.
2005Peircean abduction: Instinct or inference. Semiotica 153–1/4: 131–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
1981Indirect speech act markers or why some linguistic signs are non-arbitrary. In: R. A. Hendricks et al.., eds. Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting: Chicago Linguistic Society, April 30 – May 1, 1981. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 295–302.Google Scholar
1997Dative alternation from a cognitive perspective. In: B. Smieja & M. Tasch, eds. Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 107–126.Google Scholar
2006Metonymy as a usage. In: G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, eds. Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 147–185.Google Scholar
2008Conceptual and pragmatic motivation as an explanatory concept in linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages 3.5: 1–19.Google Scholar
2013Motivation in language. In: S. Kreitler, ed. Cognition and Motivation: Forging an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 407–432.Google Scholar
2014Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive morphology and syntax. In: G. Drożdż & A. Łyda, eds. Extension and its Limits. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 10–38.Google Scholar
2015Metonymien im Sprachvergleich. In: C. Spieß & K.-M. Köpcke, eds. Metapher und Metonymie: Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge (Empirische Linguistik). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, 207–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016a‘Quo vadimus?’ from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12.1: 93–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016bHow to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12.2: 177–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2021Motivation. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 297–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Köpcke, K.-M.
2008A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 83–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G.
eds. 1999Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In: K-U. Panther & G. Radden, eds. Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon (Human Cognitive Processing 27). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
1998A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30.6: 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001A conceptual analysis English -er nominals. In: M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven, eds. Applied Cognitive Linguistic II: Language Pedagogy (Cognitive Linguistics Research 19.2). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 149–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U & Thornburg, L. L.
2002The role of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In: R. Dirven & R. Pörings, eds. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research 20). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 279–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
eds. 2003aMetonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg
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). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 127–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
2003cMetonymy and lexical aspect in English and French. Jezikoslovlje 4.3: 71–101.Google Scholar
2005Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive-linguistic approach. In: S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou, & E. Antonopoulou, eds. Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 161). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Metonymy. In: D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236–263.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg. L. L.
2009aIntroduction: On figuration in grammar. In: K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona, eds. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
2009bFrom syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames 1.1: 56–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012aConceptualizing humans as animals in English verb particle constructions. Language Value 4.1: 63–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012bAntonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Z. Fuchs. eds. Cognitive Linguistics Between Universality and Variation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 159–186.Google Scholar
2014Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 27.1: 168–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017aMotivation and Inference: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
2017bMetaphor and metonymy in language and thought. Synthesis Philosophica 64.2: 271–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In: O. Blanco Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain, eds. Metonymy: Methodological, Theoretical, and Descriptive Issues (Human Cognitive Processing 60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 121–160.Google Scholar
2019Figurative reasoning in hedged performatives. In: M. Bolognesi, M. Brdar, & K. Despot, eds. Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theories and Methods for building repositories of Figurative Language (Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
eds. 2009Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
2004Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19.4: 245–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Corpus methods for the investigation of antonyms across languages. In: P. Juvonen & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, eds. The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, 131.–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, E.
1966Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. London & New York. Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
2021Speech Acts in English: From Research to Instruction and TexGoogle Scholar
Pople, H. E.
1973On the mechanization of abductive logic. Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 20–23 August 1973, Stanford University, Standford, CA, 147–152.Google Scholar
Posner, R.
1980Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connectives in natural language. In: J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch, eds. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Synthese Language Library 10). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 169–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Postman, L. & Keppel, G.
1970Norms of Word Association. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Bouillon, P.
1995Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics 12: 133–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Predelli, S.
2013Meaning without Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
2009Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In: K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona, eds. Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25). Benjamins: Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 199–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2021Iconicity. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 268–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z.
1999Towards a theory of metonymy. In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 17–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Towards a theory of metonymy. In: V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken, eds. Cognitive Linguistics Reader (Advances in Cognitive Linguistics). London & Oakland, CA: Equinox, 335–359.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Panther, K.-U.
2004Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In: G. Radden & K.-U. Panther, eds. Studies in Linguistic Motivation (Cognitive Linguistics Research 28). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–46.Google Scholar
Radford, A.
1988Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N.
2002When is metonymy no longer a metonymy? In: Pörings, R. & Dirven, R., eds. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research 20). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Walpiri. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rivarol, A.
1857Oeuvres de Rivarol: Études sur sa vie et son esprit par Sainte-Beuve, Arsène Housset, Armand Malitourne. Paris: Adolphe Delyhays.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R.
1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/1721​.1​/15166.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
2000The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In: A. Barcelona, ed. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (Topics in English Linguistics 30). Berlin & New York: Mouton der Gruyter, 109–132.Google Scholar
2014On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In: J. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor, eds. The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury, 143–166.Google Scholar
2021Conceptual metonymy theory revisited: Some definitional and taxonomic issues. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 204–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Otal Campo, J. L.
2002Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Granada: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L.
2001Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication 21: 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J.
1978On testing for conversational implicature. In: P. Cole, ed. Pragmatics (Syntax and Pragmatics 9). New York, etc.: Academic Press, 281–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saeed, J. I.
2009Semantics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de.
1959Course in General Linguistics. (W. Baskin, Trans.) New York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1916)Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de.
1995 [1916]Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: PayotGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
2012Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construction of meaning. In: H.-J. Schmid, ed. Handbook of Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1971What is a speech act? In: J. R. Searle, J., ed. The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–53.Google Scholar
1972Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. New York Review of Books. June 29 1972.Google Scholar
1975Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York, etc.: Academic Press, 59–82.Google Scholar
1976A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D.
1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sedley, D.
2003Plato’s ‘Cratylus’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Plato’s Cratylus”. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). [Accessed at: at https://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/archives​/fall2013​/entries​/plato​-cratylus].
Senft, G.
2014Understanding Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Language Use. London & New York. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Service, R. W.
2008The Spell of the Yukon and Other Verses. [Retrieved from www​.gutenberg​.org. (EBook #207).
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S.
eds. 2008Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 7). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, P.
2018Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F.
1957Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sobrino Pérez, P.
2017Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising (Figurative Thought and Language 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17: 3–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.
1952Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000aToward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
200bToward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.
2002Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P.
2007Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanism. In: A. Feeney & E. Heit, eds. Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental and Computational Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226–245.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H. & Boroditsky, L.
2011Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS One 6.2: e16782. [Retrieved from Crossref]
Thornburg, L. L. & Panther, K.-U.
1997Speech act metonymies. In: W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh, eds. Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 205–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2009Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S.
1986Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Tóth, M.
2018Linguistic Metonymy: Implicitness and Co-Activation of Mental Content. Berlin: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
2012Pragmatics and language change. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 549–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B.
2002Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.-J.
2006An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Pearson & Longman: Harlow.Google Scholar
Vallauri, E. L.
2016Insubordinated conditionals in spoken and non-spoken Italian. In: N. Evans & H. Watanabé, eds. Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 145–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanderveken, D.
2004Success, satisfaction, and truth in the logic of speech acts and formal semantics. In: S. Davis & B. S. Gillon, eds. Semantics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 710–734.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
1957Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66.2: 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1999Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. & de Bie-Kerékjártó, A.
2006Colorful bits of experience: From bluestocking to blue movie. English Studies 87.1: 78–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voßhagen, C.
1999Opposition as a metonymic principle: In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processes 4. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 289–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wachowski, W.
2019Towards a Better Understanding of Metonymy (Literary and Cultural Stylistics 44). Oxford: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wehling, E.
2016Politisches Framing: Wie eine Nation sich ihr Denken einrichtet – und daraus Politik macht. Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka. A.
1985Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
2005New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. In: S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou, E. Antonopoulou, eds. Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21th Century. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 375–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
2009Philosophical Investigations (G. Anscombe, P. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
1976Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Ziem, A.
2014Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse: Theoretical Foundations and Descriptive Applications (Human Cognitive Processing 48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar