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