Cover not available
Part of
Figuring out Figuration: A cognitive linguistic account
María Sandra Peña-Cervel and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Figurative Thought and Language 14] 2022
► pp. 265–289

References

Al-Hindawi, F. H. H., & Kadhim, B. J.
(2017) A pragmatic study of irony in political electoral speeches. In F. H. H. Al-Hindawi, & W. R. Al-Juwaid (Eds.), Pragmatic analysis of political data (pp. 260–309). Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Alba-Juez, L., & Attardo, S.
(2014) The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In G. Thomson, & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp. 93–116). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F.
(2013) Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition. WIREs Cogn Sci, 4 (2),149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R.
(2010) Cognitive Psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Ariel, M.
(2002) The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (4), 361–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Athanasiadou, A.
(Ed.) (2017) Studies in figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Colston, H. L.
(Eds.) (2017) Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2000a) Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (6), 793–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b) Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask. International Journal of Language and Communication, 12 (1), 3–20.Google Scholar
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I.
(2003) Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humour, 16 (2), 243–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. Textus. English Studies in Italy, 23 (3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–278). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In C. Alm-Arvius, N. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 3–42). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) The motivation of construction meaning and form. The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (1), 41–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Metaphor and simile: Categorizing and comparing categorization and comparison. In E. Gola, & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and communication (pp. 25–46). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) A hyperbole-based account of the paradoxical usage of “literally”. In A. Wallington, A. Foltz, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Selected Papers from UK CLA Meetings, Vol. 4 (pp. 111–130).Google Scholar
(2017b) Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.145–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a, October 23–26). Uniting irony, metaphor and hyperbole in a pretence-based, affect-centred framework [Conference presentation]. 4th International Conference on Figurative Thought and Language, Braga, Portugal.
(2018b) Broadly reflexive relationships, a special type of hyperbole, and implications for metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 33 (3), 218–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L.
(2014) Cognitive Psychology. An overview for cognitive scientists. New York: Psychology Press (originally published in 1992 by Lawrence Erlbaum). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beardsley, M.
(1962) The metaphorical twist. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 22 (3), 293–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1976) Metaphor and falsity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35 (2), 218–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W.
(2008) Mechanisms in Cognitive Psychology: What are the operations? Philosophy of Science, 75 (5), 983–994. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(Eds.) (2011) Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benson, T. W., & Prosser, M. M.
(1972) Readings in classical rhetoric. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Binsted, K.
(2003) The Cognitive Linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 79–92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bhaya, R.
(1985) Telling lies: Some literary and other violations of Grice’s maxim of quality. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 14 , 53–71.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B.
(2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Black, M.
(1962) Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979) More on metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D.
(1992) Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R.
(Eds.) (2018) Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, G.
(1988) Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3 (3), 21–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2005) From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer, & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp. 129–160). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Booth, W. C.
(1974) A rhetoric of irony. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75 (1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112 (1), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, P. A.
(2005) Mental spaces and cognitive semantics: A critical comment. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 , 1578–1594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2004) How pure is the pure hyperbole? The role of metonymic mappings in the construction of some hyperbolic effects. In D. Kučanda, M. Brdar, & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th birthday (pp. 373–385). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.Google Scholar
(2017) Metonymy and word formation. Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2010) “Mummy, I love you like a thousand ladybirds”: Reflections on the emergence of hyperbolic effects and the truth of hyperboles. In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (pp. 383–427). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, G. W.
(Ed.) (1979) The international standard Bible encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (online access at [URL])
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, K., & Miller, J. E.
(2013) The Cambridge dictionary of linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G.
(2010) Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47 (7), 545–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., Brugman, B. C., Renardel de Lavalette, K. Y., & Steen, G. J.
(2016) HIP: A method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 31 (3), 163–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgers, C., Van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J.
(2011) Finding irony: An introduction of the verbal irony procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 186–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, A.
(2010) Between poetry and economy. Metonymy as a semantic principle. In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s). The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (pp. 245–270). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bussmann, H.
(1996) Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Routledge (Translated from Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart 1990).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cann, R.
(2011) Sense relations. In C. Maienborn, K. Von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 1. Handbook of linguistics and communication science (pp. 456–478). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cano-Mora, L.
(2003–2004) At the risk of exaggerating: How do listeners react to hyperbole? Anglogermanica Online, 2 (online access at [URL])
(2009) All or nothing: A semantic analysis of hyperbole. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 4 (1), 25–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., Waters, G., Kennedy, D., Alpert, N., Makris, N., DeDe, G., Michaud, J., & Reddy, A.
(2007) A study of syntactic processing in aphasia II: Neurological aspects. Brain and Language, 101 (2), 151–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria, & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Essays on Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 217–285). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Contextual adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017) Relevance theory and metaphor. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds.), Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 42–55). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3 (2), 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79 , 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L.
(2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106 , 579–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chettih, S., Durgin, F. H., & Grodner, D. J.
(2012) Mixing metaphors in the cerebral hemispheres: What happens when careers collide? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38 (2), 295–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J.
(2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29 (4), 371–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P.
(2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A.
(1998) Straight: An image schema and its transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 , 107–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2014) Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26 (11), 2585–2595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C.
(2011) Hyperbole in English. A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1977) Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird, & P. C. Waston (Eds.), Thinking and reading in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Words and their possibilities in the world. In G. Lockhead, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), The perception of structure. Essays in honor of Wendell Garner (pp. 263–277). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Psychology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 , 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R.
(1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
(1999) Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clifton, N. R.
(1983) The figure in film. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, R.
(1987) Problems of intercultural communication in Egyptian-American diplomatic relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11 (1), 29–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colebrook, C.
(2004) Irony. The new critical idiom. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
(2002) Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17 (1), 57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B.
(1998) You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27 (4), 499–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
(2000) Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30 (2), 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S.
(2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson, & B. Lewandowska-Tomasczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 129–144). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2006) Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 187–208). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C.
(2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30 , 958–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension?: ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research, 1146 , 128–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crisp, P.
(2005) Allegory and symbol – a fundamental opposition? Language and Literature, 14 (4), 323–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 , 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuenca, M. J.
(2015) Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (1), 140–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Currie, G.
(2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of imagination (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B.
(2001) Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danesi, M.
(2017) The bidirectionality of metaphor. Poetics Today, 38 (1), 15–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davenport, T., & Coulson, S.
(2013) Hemispheric asymmetry in interpreting novel literal language: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 51 (5), 907–921. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Hagoort, P.
(Eds.) (2018) Research methods in psycholinguists and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Deamer, F., Pouscoulous, N., & Breheny, R.
(2010) A contrastive look at metaphor and hyperbole. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 22 , 1–15.Google Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N.
(2011) Cognitive modeling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2), 392–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R. B.
(1994)  Over again: Image schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4), 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe (In cooperation with Grady, J. E.) (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 369–393). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C.
(1997) The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Díez, O. I.
(2005) Un análisis cognitivo de las metonimias de las partes del cuerpo: Clasificación, motivación construccional y modos de interacción [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of La Rioja.
Dirven, R.
(1993) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense Bijdragen, 82 , 1–28.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2010) Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H.-G.
(2010) Cognitive linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse analysis. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1222–1240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. S.
(1966) Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75 (3), 281–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupriez, B. M.
(1991) A dictionary of literary devices: Gradus, A-Z. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M.
(2016) Two layers of overt untruthfulness. When irony meets metaphor, hyperbole or meiosis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23 (2), 259–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Implicitness via overt untruthfulness. Grice on quality-based figures of speech. In P. Cap, & M. Dynel (Eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse (pp. 121–145). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Irony, deception, and humor. Seeking the truth about overt and covert truthfulness. Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edelmann, R. J., Asendorpf, J., Contarello, A., Zammuner, V., Georgas, J., & Villanueva, C.
(1989) Self-reported expression of embarrassment in five European cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20 (4), 357–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D.
(2010) Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 347–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2009) How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. L.
(2005) Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46 (4), 621–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 147–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1994) Conceptual projection and middle spaces. Technical Report 9401. UCSD, Department of Cognitive Science, San Diego. (online access at [URL] and from [URL])
(1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S.
(2004) Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89 (2), 385–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filippova, E., & Astington, J. W.
(2010) Children’s understanding of social-cognitive and social communicative aspects of discourse irony. Child Development, 81 (3), 913–928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
(1971) Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg, & L. Jacobovitz (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 370–392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 , 222–255.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
(1992) Towards a frame-based lexicon: the case of RISK. In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
(2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3), 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical construction: The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64 (3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fogelin, R. J.
(1988) Figuratively speaking. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Figuratively speaking (2nd ed. – revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Ch.
(2002) The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, M. H.
(2017) Multimodalities of metaphor: A perspective from the poetic arts. Poetics Today, 38 (1), 61–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M.
(1999) The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (6), 1366–1383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galera, A.
(2020) The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (1), 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., & Petersen, W.
(Eds.) (2014) Frames and concept types. Applications in language and philosophy. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garmendia, J.
(2018) Irony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F.
(2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 223–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L.
(2002) As time goes by: Understanding time as spatial metaphor. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17 , 537–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. W., & Werner, N. K.
(2001) The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45 (3), 433–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, B.
(2009) Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24 (1), 51–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(1986a) On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115 (1), 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986b) What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25 (2), 181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986c) Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62 (1), 41–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16 (1), 56–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994) The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000a) Making good psychology out of blending theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3&4), 347–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1&2), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what speakers say and implicate. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (4), 457–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005b) Embodied action in thought and language. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 225–247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006a) Embodiment in cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006b) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Irony among friends. In R. W. Gibbs, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader (pp. 339–360). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48 (8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 40 , 45–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Embodied metaphor. In J. Littlemore, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 167–184). London: Blooomsbury.Google Scholar
(2017) Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L.
(1995) The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (4), 347–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Figurative language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguitics (2nd ed.) (pp. 835–861). London & Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Gerrig, R. J.
(1989) How context makes metaphor comprehension seem “special”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4 (3), 145–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Izett, C. D.
(2005) Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 131–151). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Matlock, T.
(2008) Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (p. 161–176). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(1995) On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19 , 239–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Irony and its discontent. In D. Shram, & G. Steen (Eds). Utretch publications in general and comparative literature. The psychology and sociology of literature: in Honour of Elrud Isch, vol. 35 (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O.
(1999) Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14 (4), 241–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Alkeslassy Levi, N., & Sabah, H.
(2005) On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39 , 81–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kaufman, R., Eisenberg, D., & Erez, S.
(2009) Does an ‬ironic situation‭ favor an ironic interpretation? In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds.) Cognitive Poetics. Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 383–399). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T.
(1998) Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13 (2), 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Gazal, O., & Goldstein, I.
(2012) Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Metaphor and Symbol, 27 (1), 22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (4), 290–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., & Kasher, A.
(2000) Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1&2), 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B.
(1982) On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 21 (1), 85–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C.
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 360–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B.
(1993) How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 401–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A.
(1997) The language of metaphors. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez, F., Peña, M. S., & Pérez, L.
(Eds.) (2013) Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Previously published in Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 2011). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997a) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997b) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1595–1614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., & Ascoli, G. A.
(2017) Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 27–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen, & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. & Johnson, C.
(2002) Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533–553). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J.
(1965) Studies in lexical relations [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. [URL]
Haiman, J.
(1998) Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hamamoto, H.
(1998) Irony from a cognitive perspective. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp. 257–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, E., & Huntington, C.
(Eds.) (1961) The collected dialogues of Plato. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
(Ed.) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handl, S.
(2011) The conventionality of figurative language. A usage-based study. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Harder, P.
(2003) Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them? Cognitive Linguistics, 14 (1), 91–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, R., & Taylor, T. J.
(1996) Landmarks in linguistic thought: The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haverkate, H.
(1990) A speech-act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (1), 77–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, T.
(1972) Metaphor. London & New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Henle, P.
(1958) Metaphor. In P. Henle (Ed.) (1981), Language, thought and culture (pp. 173–195). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Reprinted in M. Johnson (Ed.) (1981), Philosophical perspectives on metaphor (pp. 83–104). Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B.
(Eds.) (2015) Bilingual figurative language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero-Ruiz, J.
(2009) Understanding tropes. At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2018) Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and CAUSE FOR EFFECT/EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymies. Language & Communication, 62 , 51–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hong, H. V.
(Ed.) (1989) The concept of irony with continual reference to Socrates, by Soren Kierkegaard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(2012) Emergent Grammar. In J. Gee, & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 301–312). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R.
(1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English (Publication No. 73–1702) [Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. [URL]
(1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L.
(2017) Lie-toe-tease: Double negatives and unexcluded middles. Philosophical Studies, 174 (1), 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, A.
(1983) Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & G. Pullum
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hussey, K., & Katz, A. N.
(2009) Perception of the use of metaphor by an interlocutor in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 24 (4), 203–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutcheon, L.
(1994) Irony’s edge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iza, A.
(2015) Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. International Journal of English Studies, 15 (1), 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1997) The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1971) The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jakobson, & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (pp. 54–82). The Hague: Mouton. Reprinted in R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.) (2002) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41–47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.
(1999) Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy. The case of see . In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 155–169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E.
(2007) Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (6), 571–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapogianni, E.
(2011) Irony via “surrealism”. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humor across discourse domains (pp. 51–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. N.
(1996) Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11 (1), 17–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In H. Colston, & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Katz, A. N., & Al-Azary, H.
(2017) Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38 (1), 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. N., & Ferretti, T.
(2001) Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 193–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D.
(1977) Irony and rhetorical strategy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 10 (2), 90–110.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 75 , 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B.
(1989) On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28 (4), 375–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittay, E. F.
(1987) Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
(1999) Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139–168). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(1990) Emotion concepts. Berlin & New York: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Does metaphor reflect or constitute cultural models? In R. W., Jr. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 167–188). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Metaphor and emotion. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 380–396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Metaphor, culture, and discourse: The pressure of coherence. In A. Musolff, & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp. 11–24). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The metaphor–metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28 (2), 75–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Caucci, G. M.
(2009) Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind (pp. 325–348). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., Kassler, M. A., & Coppenrath, L.
(1998) The use of hyperbole in discourse: Cognitive and social facets. In S. R. Fussell, & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 91–111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M.
(1995) Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (1), 21–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. J., Roberts, R. M., Johnson, B. K., & Bertus, E. L.
(1996) Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature. In R. J. Kreuz, & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 83–98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Rossi, E.
(2013) Bilingualism and multilingualism: Quantitative methods. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encylopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M.
(1995) How about another piece of the pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124 (1), 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunneman, F., Liebrecht, C., Van den Bosch, A., & Van Mulken, M.
(2015) Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing and Management, 51 (4), 500–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1986) The meanings of literal. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1 (4), 291–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (1), 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Metaphors and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Studies in honour of Rene Dirven on occasion of his 60th birthday. Thirty years of linguistic evolution (pp. 463–482). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) ‘Sorry, I’m not myself today’: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the Self. In G. Fauconnier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 91–123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2009) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 , 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2003) Metaphors we live by (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 24–63). Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, A.
(2015) Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model. Language and Cognition, 7 (4), 515–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lausberg, H.
(1990) Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leezenberg, M.
(2001) Contexts of metaphor. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Rodríguez, I.
(2009) Of women, bitches, chickens and vixens: Animal metaphors for women in English and Spanish. Cultura, lenguaje y representación, 7 , 77–100.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O.
(1936) The Great Chain of Being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lozano-Palacio, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2022) Modeling irony: A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luck, S. J.
(2014) An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge & London: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler, & J. Martín-Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J.
(2004) The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M., & Pagán, C. C.
(2014) On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6 (4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinich, A. P.
(1984) Communication and reference. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
(2004) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32 (8), 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
(2004) “There’s millions of them”: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (2), 149–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A.
(1993) Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 357–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mio, J. S., & Katz, A. N.
(Eds.) (1996) Metaphor: Implications and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miró, I.
(2018) Combining metaphors: From metaphoric amalgams to binary systems. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38 (1), 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I.
(2010) Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In V. Evans, & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 351–385). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2013) The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Tessendorf (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1) (pp. 750–779). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Joue, G.
(2017) Source actions ground metaphor via metonymy: Toward a frame-based account of gestural action in multimodal discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 119–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mooij, J. J. A.
(1976) A study of metaphor. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Moore, K. E.
(2014a) The spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b) The two-mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 375–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. L.
(1993) Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 124–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrison, D. R.
(Ed.) (2011) The Cambridge companion to Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muecke, D. C.
(1970) Irony and the ironic: The critical idiom. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. J.
(Ed.) (2010) Arguments in rhetoric against Quintilian: Translation and text of Peter Ramus’s Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum (1549) (Translated by Carole Newlands. 2nd ed. Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press).Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2017) Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 109 , 95–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nemesi, A. L.
(2010) Data-gathering methods in research on hyperbole production and interpretation. In E. T. Nemeth, & K. Bibok (Eds.), The role of data at the semantic-pragmatic interface (pp. 381–417). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
(1999) Synecdoche as a cognitive and communicative strategy. In A. Blank, & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 197–214). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Chamizo, P. J.
(2003) The use of literally: Vice or virtue? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1 , 193–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C.
(2009) Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85 , 355–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (9), 1727–1739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noveck, I., Bianco, M., & Castry, A.
(2001) The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (1&2), 109–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
(1995) Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12 (2), 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T.
(2010) Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A.
(Ed.) (1993) Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla, M.
(Ed.) (2016) Relevance theory. Recent developments, current challenges and future directions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (6), 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
(2000) The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 215–232). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A.
(Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, M. S.
(2003) Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
(2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (6), 1041–1066. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14 (2), 474–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) How do hyperbolic effects emerge? In A. C. Pelosi & M. F. Fontenelle Carneiro (Eds.), Linguagem e pensamento: Pesquisas, reflexões e práticas (pp. 155–176). São Luís, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Brasil: EDUFMA.Google Scholar
forthcoming). For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health: A cognitive-linguistic approach to merism. Metaphor and Symbol.
Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2009) Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 41–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (3), 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P.
(2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, K., Gibbs, R., & Johnson, M.
(1997) Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18 , 59–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, A., & Wałaszewska, E.
(Eds.) (2017) Applications of Relevance Theory. From discourse to morphemes. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9 (2&3), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M.
(2014) Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6 (1), 127–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Mind the gap: Expressing affect with hyperbole and hyperbolic figures. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 449–468). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prandi, M.
(2017) Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language. New York & Lodon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quintero, R.
(2007) Introduction: Understanding satire. In R. Quintero (Ed.), A companion to satire: Ancient and modern (pp. 1–12). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
(1996) Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going . In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 423–458). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Récanati, F.
(1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4 (4), 295–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2007) Indexicality, context and pretense: A speech-act theory account. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics (pp. 213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regel, S., Coulson, S., & Gunter, T. C.
(2010) The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research, 1311 , 121–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D.
(2011) Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (2), 277–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reyes, A., & Rosso, P.
(2014) On the difficulty of automatically detecting irony: Beyond a simple case of negation. Knowledge and Information Systems, 40 (3), 595–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rich, A. N., & Mattingley, J. B.
(2002) Anomalous perception in synesthesia: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3 (1), 43–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, I. A.
(1925) Principles of literary criticism. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
(1936) The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D.
(2004) Metaphors in conversational context: Toward a connectivity theory of metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 19 (4), 265–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Contextual activation of story simulation in metaphor comprehension. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 220–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, T.
(2005) Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–196). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Embodiment and experientialism. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 25–47). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Romano, M.
(2015) Are similes and metaphors interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, E., & Soria, B.
(2014) Relevance Theory and metaphor. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14 (3), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R.
(2013) How metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theoretic account of loose use. In D. Mazzarella, I. Needham-Didsbury, & K. Tang (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 35 , 20–45.Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R.
(2015) Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (1), 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(1996) Blended spaces and the pragmatic approach to cognition. In B. Penas (Ed.), The intertextual dimension of discourse (pp. 233–244). Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza.Google Scholar
(1997a) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis: Revista Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, 19 (1), 281–295.Google Scholar
(1997b) Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6 (2), 161–178.Google Scholar
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (3), 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999a) Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
(1999b) From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Linguistic LAUD Agency. University of Essen. Series A. General and Theoretical Papers. Paper no. 492.Google Scholar
(2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) Construing meaning through conceptual mappings. In P. Fuertes (Ed.), Lengua y sociedad: aportaciones recientes en Lingüística Cognitiva, Lingüística del Corpus, Lenguajes de Especialidad y Lenguas en Contacto (pp. 19–38). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2014b) Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27 (1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014c) Low-level situational cognitive models within the Lexical Constructional Model and their computational implementation in FunGramKB. In B. Nolan, & C. Periñán (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp. 367–390). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (3), 258–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2017b) Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 30 (1), 297–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017c) Cognitive modeling and irony. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71 , 16–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b) Figurative language: Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 469–510). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and grammar-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
(2007) Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O.
(2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O.
(2004) Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 293–320). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2020) The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez, M. A.
(2014) Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. A. Gómez, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. Gonzálvez, & A. Downing (Eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I.
(2019a) Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5 (1), 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b) A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34 (2), 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) On verbal and situational irony: Towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 213–240). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A.
(2016) Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8 (1), 32–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
(2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42 (3&4), 355–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Miró, I.
(2019) On the cognitive grounding of agent-deprofiling constructions as a case of pretense constructions. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 32 (2), 573–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal, J. L.
(2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, M. S.
(2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez-González, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive Perspectives (pp. 251–280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21 (4), 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther, & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E.
(1993) Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 71–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M.
(1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1988) Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (1), 55–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp. 51–77). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2000) When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21 (2), 205–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schifanella, R., de Juan, P., Tetreault, J., & Cao, L.
(2016) Detecting sarcasm in multimodal social platforms. Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 1136–1145). Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K.
(2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1&2), 47–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13 (1), 217–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993) Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 83–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, K.
(1998) On non-echoic irony. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 239–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Metonymic polysemy and its place in meaning extension. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 195–216). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986) Loose talk. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 86 (1), 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2008) A deflationary theory of metaphor. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spitzbardt, H.
(1963) Overstatement and understatement in British and American English. Philologica Pragensia, 6 , 277–286.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Berenike Herrmann, J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
(2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, L.
(1996) Metonymy and anaphora. In W. Mulder, & L. Tasmowki (Eds.), Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 10 (Coherence and anaphora), 69–88. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strik Lievers, F.
(2017) Figures and the senses. Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1988) The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I: Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M.
(2017) Metaphor in pragmatics. In A. Barron, Y. Gu, & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 323–340). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tendahl, M.
(2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor. Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (11), 1823–1864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobin, V., & Israel, M.
(2012) Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. In B. Dancygier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language (pp. 24–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todorov, T.
(1970) Synecdoches. Communications, 16 , 26–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(1996) The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Frame blending. In R. Rossini Favretti (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp. 13–32). Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
(1995) Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (3), 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A.
(1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (4), 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J.
(1996) An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.
(2009) Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., & Dijkstra, T.
(2010) Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64 (1), 104–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Veale, T., & Hao, Y.
(2010, August 16–20). Detecting ironic intent in creative comparisons [Conference presentation]. 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Lisbon, Portugal.
Vega Moreno, R. E.
(2007) Creativity and convention. The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walaszewska, E.
(2011) Broadening and narrowing in lexical development: How relevance theory can account for children’s overextensions and underextensions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 314–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N.
(2007) Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, K. L.
(2017) Meiosis, hyperbole, irony. Philosophical Studies, 174 (1), 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Way, E. C.
(1991) Knowledge representation and metaphor. Oxford: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, K. A.
(2015) Extreme-case formulations. In K. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1–5). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2011) Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8 (2), 177–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59 (A), 40–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2006) Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language, 21 (3), 404–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference, and ad hoc concepts. In E. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–260). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(1981) On verbal irony. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 195–318). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M.
(2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 , 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winner, E., & Gardner, H.
(1993) Metaphor and irony: Two levels of understanding. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 425–443). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B.
(2019) Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perceptual metaphor (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D.
(2011) Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35 (8), 1456–1488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamanashi, M.
(1998) Some issues in the treatment of irony and related tropes. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp. 271–282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zekavat, M.
(2019) Reflexive humour and satire: A critical review. European Journal of Humour Research, 7 (4), 125–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., & Musolff, A.
(2009) A discourse-centred perspective on metaphorical meaning and understanding. In A. Musolff, & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp. 1–8). Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar