Cover not available
Part of
Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics
Klaus-Uwe Panther
[Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 4] 2022
► pp. 267–278

References

Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A., Farmer, A. K., & Harnish, R. M.
2010 Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. 6th edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aliseda, A.
2006 Abductive 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.
2010 Key Terms in Pragmatics. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ambler, E.
2001 [1937] Background to Danger. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Ariel, M.
2008 Grammar and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Defining Pragmatics (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnaud, A. & Lancelot, C.
1660 Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Pierre Le Petit. [Online access: [URL]]
Athanasiadou, A.
2017 Irony 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L.
1961 Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1971 Performative – constative. In: J. R. Searle, ed. The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–22.Google Scholar
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M.
1979 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A.
2012 On Acting and Thinking: Studies Bridging between Speech Acts and Cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2015 Metonymy. In: Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D., eds. 2015 The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 143–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
2010 Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21.1: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R.
2014 Repetitions which are not repetitions: the non-redundant nature of tautological compounds. English Language and Linguistics 18.3: 431–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Rhyme over Reason: Phonological Motivation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, M. & Paavola, S.
eds. 2014 The Commens Dictionary: Peirce’s Terms in His Own Words. New Edition. [Term ‘Metaphor’ retrieved from [URL]].
Bierwiaczonek, B.
2013 Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J.
2013 Introduction to Pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borsley, D., & Newmeyer, F. J.
2009 On subject-auxiliary inversion and the notion “purely formal generalization”. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 135–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
2017 Metonymy and Word Formation: Their Interaction and Complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Broccias, C.
2003 The English Change Network (Cognitive Linguistics Research 22). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. & Miller, J.
2013 The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G.
1986 The semantics of aux-inversion and anaphora constraints. Unpublished paper: University of California at Berkeley.
Buchler, J.
1955 Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Burgers, C., Konijn. E. A., & Steen, G. J.
2016 Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 26.4: 410–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, A.
1986 Soziale Akte, Sprechakte und Textillokutionen: A. Reinachs Rechtsphilosophie und die moderne Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cann, R.
1993 Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
2012 Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 469–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y.
2012 Semantic comparison between English -er nominals and Korean -i nominals. Discourse and Cognition 19.3: 297–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1959 A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35.1: 26–58.Google Scholar
1975 Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V.
1977 Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cobley, P.
ed. 2010 The Routledge Companion to Semiotics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coetzee, J. M.
2016 The Schooldays of Jesus. Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
1988 Topics, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conant, L. L.
1931 The Number Concept: Its Origin and Development. New York & London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1995 Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71.3: 490–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A.
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
2006 A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
1997 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2008 A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R.
2005 Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D.
eds. 2015 The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B.
ed. 2017 The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
2014 Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D.
1978 What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5.1: 31–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, W.
2014 Implicature. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Accessed at: [URL]].
Deane, P. D.
1992 Grammar in Mind and Brain (Cognitive Linguistics Research 2). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denroche, C.
2015 Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G.
2002 On the misuse of the notion of ‘abduction’ in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 38: 469–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science 19.10: 603–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M.
eds. 2004 Cognitive Explorations of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O.
1969 Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue française 4: 300–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1972 Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Durkin, P.
2009 The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N.
2007 Insubordination 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. 2016 Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
2007 A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M.
2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward, eds. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 657–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Faust, M. & Mashal, N.
2007 The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: a divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia 45: 860–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feist, J.
2012 Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1969 Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. Papers in Linguistics 1.1: 81–117.Google Scholar
1982 Frame 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.
1975 Hedged performatives. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 44–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garner, B. A.
2009 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.) St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Frege, G.
1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
2010 Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H.
eds. 2007 The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geis, M. L. & Zwicky, A. M.
1971 On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2.4: 561–566.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
Jr. 1994 The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jr. 2005 Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jr. 2006 Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21.3: 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
2002 Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34: 487–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
1993 English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996 Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 3–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1): 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A.
1985 A 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
1975 Conversational postulates. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 83–106.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
1997 Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. UC Berkeley: Dissertations, Department of Linguistics. Retrieved from [URL].
Grady, J. E.
2005 Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1595–1614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, G.
1989 Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A.
2016 Le bon usage: Grammaire française. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1975 Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grundy, P.
2000 Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
1997 Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R.
1988 Pragmatic theory. In: F. J. Newmeyer, ed. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. I: Linguistic Theories: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–145.Google Scholar
1989 A Natural History of Negation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1991 Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 313–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Implicature. In: L. R. Horn & G. Ward, eds. Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. & Ward, G.
eds. 2006 Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y.
2007 Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäkel, O.
1997 Metaphern in abstrakten Diskurs-Domänen: Eine kognitiv-linguistische Untersuchung anhand der Bereiche Geistestätigkeit, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: LangGoogle Scholar
1999 Kant, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L.
2013 Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn: An Essential Reader. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011 Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L.
1971 Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 5: 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C.
1970 Fact. In: M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph, eds. Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E.
1991 The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. & Panther, K.-U.
1989 On correlations between word order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics 13: 685–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Analytische 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2005 Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G.
1998 Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 The neural theory of metaphor. In: R. W. Gibbs, Jr., ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (3rd. ed.). Chicago & London: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
1989 More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide To Poetic Metaphor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford : Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Grammar and Conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research 14). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a Metonymic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b Investigations in Cognitive Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H.
1990 Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. 10th ed. Munich: Huber.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipton, P.
2000 Inference 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.
2015 Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. & J. Taylor, J.
2013 The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lodge, A.
1998 Is 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. 2011 Embodiment Via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures (Human Cognitive Processing 31). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markert, K. & Hahn, U.
2002 Understanding metonymies in discourse. Artificial Intelligence 135: 145–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mashal, N. & Faust, M.
2008 Conventionalization of novel metaphors: a shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Ms., Bar-Ilan University.
Mazzone, M.
2018 Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Consciousness, Inferences. Boston & Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menninger, K.
1969 Number and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C. W.
1938 Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Murdoch, I.
1999 The Sea, the Sea. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
2016 Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
1992 Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68: 756–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 A note on Chomsky on form and function. Journal of Linguistics 30: 245–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Notley, F. E. M.
1881 In the House of a Friend. London: Ward, Lock & Co. Retrieved from: httspgoogle.books.comGoogle Scholar
Nöth, W.
1990 Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs Keenan, E.
1976 The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society 5: 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paavola, S.
2005 Peircean abduction: Instinct or inference. Semiotica 153–1/4: 131–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
1981 Indirect 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
1997 Dative alternation from a cognitive perspective. In: B. Smieja & M. Tasch, eds. Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 107–126.Google Scholar
2006 Metonymy 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
2008 Conceptual and pragmatic motivation as an explanatory concept in linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages 3.5: 1–19.Google Scholar
2013 Motivation in language. In: S. Kreitler, ed. Cognition and Motivation: Forging an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 407–432.Google Scholar
2014 Metaphor 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
2015 Metonymien 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a ‘Quo vadimus?’ from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12.1: 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12.2: 177–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Motivation. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 297–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Köpcke, K.-M.
2008 A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 83–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G.
eds. 1999 Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Introduction: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
1998 A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30.6: 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U & Thornburg, L. L.
2002 The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
eds. 2003a Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg
2003b Metonymies 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
2003c Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French. Jezikoslovlje 4.3: 71–101.Google Scholar
2005 Motivation 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Metonymy. 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.
2009a Introduction: 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
2009b From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames 1.1: 56–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012a Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb particle constructions. Language Value 4.1: 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b Antonymy 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
2014 Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 27.1: 168–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a Motivation and Inference: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
2017b Metaphor and metonymy in language and thought. Synthesis Philosophica 64.2: 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 What 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
2019 Figurative 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
eds. 2009 Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
2004 Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19.4: 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Corpus 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partridge, E.
1966 Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. London & New York. Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
2021 Speech Acts in English: From Research to Instruction and TexGoogle Scholar
Pople, H. E.
1973 On 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.
1980 Semantics 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postman, L. & Keppel, G.
1970 Norms of Word Association. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. & Bouillon, P.
1995 Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics 12: 133–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Predelli, S.
2013 Meaning without Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
2009 Generic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Iconicity. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 268–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007 Cognitive English Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z.
1999 Towards 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Towards 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.
2004 Introduction: 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.
1988 Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N.
2002 When 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Walpiri. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rivarol, A.
1857 Oeuvres de Rivarol: Études sur sa vie et son esprit par Sainte-Beuve, Arsène Housset, Armand Malitourne. Paris: Adolphe Delyhays.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R.
1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from [URL].
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
2000 The 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
2014 On 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
2021 Conceptual 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Otal Campo, J. L.
2002 Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Granada: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L.
2001 Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication 21: 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J.
1978 On testing for conversational implicature. In: P. Cole, ed. Pragmatics (Syntax and Pragmatics 9). New York, etc.: Academic Press, 281–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeed, J. I.
2009 Semantics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de.
1959 Course 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.
2012 Generalizing 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1971 What is a speech act? In: J. R. Searle, J., ed. The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–53.Google Scholar
1972 Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. New York Review of Books. June 29 1972.Google Scholar
1975 Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, eds. Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York, etc.: Academic Press, 59–82.Google Scholar
1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D.
1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sedley, D.
2003 Plato’s ‘Cratylus’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Plato’s Cratylus”. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). [Accessed at: at [URL]].
Senft, G.
2014 Understanding Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Language Use. London & New York. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Service, R. W.
2008 The Spell of the Yukon and Other Verses. [Retrieved from [URL]. (EBook #207).
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S.
eds. 2008 Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 7). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siemund, P.
2018 Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F.
1957 Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobrino Pérez, P.
2017 Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising (Figurative Thought and Language 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17: 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.
1952 Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000a Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
200b Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.
2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P.
2007 Abductive 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.
2011 Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS One 6.2: e16782. [Retrieved from DOI logo]
Thornburg, L. L. & Panther, K.-U.
1997 Speech act metonymies. In: W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh, eds. Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 205–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2009 Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S.
1986 Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Tóth, M.
2018 Linguistic Metonymy: Implicitness and Co-Activation of Mental Content. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
2012 Pragmatics and language change. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 549–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B.
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.-J.
2006 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Pearson & Longman: Harlow.Google Scholar
Vallauri, E. L.
2016 Insubordinated conditionals in spoken and non-spoken Italian. In: N. Evans & H. Watanabé, eds. Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 145–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderveken, D.
2004 Success, 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.
1957 Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66.2: 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1999 Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. & de Bie-Kerékjártó, A.
2006 Colorful bits of experience: From bluestocking to blue movie. English Studies 87.1: 78–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voßhagen, C.
1999 Opposition as a metonymic principle: In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processes 4. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 289–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wachowski, W.
2019 Towards a Better Understanding of Metonymy (Literary and Cultural Stylistics 44). Oxford: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehling, E.
2016 Politisches Framing: Wie eine Nation sich ihr Denken einrichtet – und daraus Politik macht. Köln: Halem.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka. A.
1985 Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
2005 New 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
2009 Philosophical Investigations (G. Anscombe, P. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
1976 Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Ziem, A.
2014 Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse: Theoretical Foundations and Descriptive Applications (Human Cognitive Processing 48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar