Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:2 (2019) ► pp. 247270
References

[ p. 269 ]References

Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2003) The manner for activity metonymy across domains and languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4 (1), 43–69.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4: Selected papers from SICOL-’97 (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 (2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y.
(2015) Japanese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A.
(2004) A metaphor in search of a source domain: The categories of Slavic aspect. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (4), 471–527. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kindaichi, H.
(1976) Kokugo doushi no ichi-bunrui [A classification of Japanese verbs]. In H. Kindaichi (Ed.) Nihongo doshi no asupekuto [Aspect of Japanese verbs] (pp. 5–26). Tokyo: Mugishobo.Google Scholar
Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M.
(2007) Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12 (2), 72–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.
(2015) Metonymic relationships among actuality, modality, evaluation, and emotion. In J. Daems, et al. (Eds.), Change of paradigms–New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp. 129–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
(1999) The Potentiality for Actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K. Panther, and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003b) Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In Panther, K., and Thornburg, L. (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003c) Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French. Jezikoslovlje, 4 (1), 71–101.Google Scholar
[ p. 270 ]
(2007) Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther, and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Hernández, L. P.
(2003) High-level modal metonymies in English and Spanish. Jezikoslovlje, 4 (1), 103–120.Google Scholar
Sato, T.
(1994) Tadoushi hyougen to kaizaisei [Transitive expressions and intermediary causatives]. Nihongo Kyoiku [Japanese Education], 84, 53–64.Google Scholar
Sawada, J.
(2008) Nihongo no kaizai-shieki koubun o megut-te: Ninchi-gengogaku to goyoron no setten [On the intermediary causative construction in Japanese: A crossroad of cognitive linguistics and pragmatics]. Kodama, K., & Koyama, T. (Eds.), Gengo to ninchi no mekanizumu: Yamanashi Masa-aki kyouju kanreki kinen ronbun-shu [Mechanisms of language and cognition: A festschrift for Professor Masa-aki Yamanashi on his 60th birthday] (pp. 61–73). Tokyo: Hitsujishobo.Google Scholar
(2009) Nihongo no tadoushi-bun to jueki-koubun no koubun nettowaaku: Nishi-ei-go no taishou-bunseki o hukume-te [A constructional network of transitive and benefactive constructions: A contrastive analysis on Japanese and English]. KLS, 29, 215–225.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M.
(1976) Causativization. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Japanese generative grammar (pp. 239–294). Tokyo: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taoka, C.
(2000) Aspect and argument structure in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
(1997) Speech act metonymies. In W. Liebert, G. Redeker, and L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Itbaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. M.
(2008) Event perception. Scholarpedia, 3 (10), 3837. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B.
(2001) Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (1), 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D., & Lee, S.
(2009) A metonymic analysis of Singaporean and Malaysian English causative constructions. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 291–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar