Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 1–16

Figurative thought and language research in the 21st century

Back to the future

| University of Osijek
| ELTE, Budapest
Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.00brd
References (46)
References
Alač, M., & Coulson, S. (2004). The man, the key, or the car: Who or what is parked out back? Cognitive Science Online, 2(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2017). Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2020). The diversity of irony. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S. (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbe, K. (1993). “Isn’t it ironic that…”: Explicit irony markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(6), 579–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2021). Metaphor and irony: Messy when mixed. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage (Vol. Figurative Thought and Language 11, pp. 139-174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabo, R. (2013). Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. ExELL. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 40–62.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014a). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Croatian place suffixations in -ište: Polysemy and metonymy. In F. Polzenhagen, Z. Kövecses, S. Vogelbacher, & S. Kleinke (Eds.), Cognitive explorations into metaphor and metonymy (pp. 293–322). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2021). Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language – Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 175–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C. (2017). A radical approach to metonymy. Textus, 30(1), 185–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & William Pagliuca, D. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Canestrari, C., & Bianchi, I. (2018). Perceptual opposites and the modulation of contrast in irony. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 48–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2017). Pragmatic effects in blended figures. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in Figurative Thought and Language (pp. 274–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Carreno, A. (2020). Sources of pragmatic effects in irony and hyperbole. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language (pp. 188–208). Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2006). Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampoli (Ed.), Linguistic Structures processing (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam/New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222-255.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2021). Second-order empathy, pragmatic ambiguity, and irony. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage (pp. 19-40). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.Jr. (2021). “Holy cow, my irony detector just exploded!” calling out irony during the coronavirus pandemic. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(1), 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Samermit, P., & Karzmark, C. R. (2018). Humor, irony, and the body. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 72–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (2017). Interpersonal conflict. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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
Kwon, I., & Kim, E. (2021). (Meta-)Ground Viewpoint Space and structurally-framed irony: A case study of the mobile game Liyla and the Shadows of War. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Theory, method, and description in cognitive grammar: A case study. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics today (pp. 13–40). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2021). About as boring as flossing sharks: Cognitive accounts of irony and the family of approximate comparison constructions in American English. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 133–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matzner, S. (2016). Rethinking metonymy: Literary theory and poetic practice from Pindar to Jakobson. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muecke, D. C. (1978). Irony markers. Poetics, 7(4), 363–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peńa Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2014). Situational metonymies. Plenary lecture at The 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language, Thessaloniki, April 24–26, 2014.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999). Introducción a la Teoría Cognitiva de la Metonímia. Granada: Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
(2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metonymy and Metaphor at the Crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019a). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Unraveling irony: from linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5(1), 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127-138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 389–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar