Chapter in:
Figurativity and Human Ecology
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 1542
References
Anderson, E. R.
(1998) A grammar of iconism. London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2000) 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
Audi, N.
(2015) The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Third edition. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.
(2020) Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in an affect-centred, pretence-based framework. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), The diversity of irony (pp. 15–65). De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A. & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2005) Is there an Ironic Tone of Voice? Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camp, E.
(2012) Sarcasm, pretence and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Noûs, 46, 587–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: a pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3 (2), 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M.
(1999) Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 668–676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. M.
(2001) Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor & Symbol, 16(3), 249–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D., Kennedy, J., & Chiappe, P.
(2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, S.
(2017) Resemblance. Philosophy Compass, 12 (4): e12401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
(2000) Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Csábi, S.
(2014) Metaphor and stylistics. In M. Burke (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of stylistics (pp. 206–221). Routledge.Google Scholar
Cytowic, R. E.
(2002) Synesthesia: A union of the senses (2nd ed.). MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galera, A.
(2013) A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.Google Scholar
(2020) The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 19–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P.
(2014) Geometry of meaning. Semantics based on conceptual spaces. The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C.
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y.
(2005) Similarity. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 13–36). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56(3), 515–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasson, U., Estes, Z., & Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Metaphors communicate more effectively than do similes. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society. 42d Annual Meeting, 6, 103. Psychonomic Society Publications.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lozano, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2022) Modeling irony. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy. Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A.
(2007) Irony and the reversal of evaluation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1547–1569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2022) Figuring out figuration. A cognitive linguistic account. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popa-Wyatt, M.
(2014) Pretence and echo: Towards and integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 127–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Pereyra, G.
(2002) Resemblance nominalism. A solution to the problem of universals. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Romano, M.
(2017) Are similes and metaphors interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossen-Knill, D. F., & Henry, R.
(1997) The pragmatics of verbal parody. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 719–752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(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). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Cognitive modeling and irony. In H. Colston, & A. Athanasiadou (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2020a) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020b) Figurative language. Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing Figurative Expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 469–510). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2022) Analogical and non-analogical resemblance in figurative language: a cognitive-linguistic perspective. In S. Wuppuluri, & A. C. Grayling (Eds.), Metaphors and analogies in sciences and humanities: Words and worlds (pp. 269–294). Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano, I.
(2019) A Cognitive-Linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2021) On verbal and situational irony: towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative Language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 249–276). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D.
(2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, W.
(2007) Iconicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 394–418). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S.
(2004) Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Ten lectures on Cognitive Linguistics and the unification of spoken and signed languages. Brill.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2000) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentations. A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 411–448). Oxford University Press (revized version in Wilson and Sperber, 2012a).Google Scholar
(2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence?Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 40–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012a) Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 230–258). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar