Part of
Metonymy in Language and ThoughtEdited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden
[Human Cognitive Processing 4] 1999
► pp. 333–
Edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden
[Human Cognitive Processing 4] 1999
► pp. 333–
The Potentiality for Actuality Metonymy in English and Hungarian
Cited by
Cited by 47 other publications
Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2017. Chapter 6. If-clauses and their figurative basis. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 152 ff. 
Baicchi, Annalisa
2007. Review of Günter, Köpcke, Berg & Siemund (2007): Aspects of Meaning Construction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5 ► pp. 307 ff.
Baicchi, Annalisa
2015. Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 106 ff.
Baicchi, Annalisa
2017. Chapter 3. How to do things with metonymy in discourse. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 76 ff.
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. Chapter 5. How metonymy and grammar interact. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 126 ff.
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Tanja Gradečak
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2021. Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 175 ff.
Chang, Miao-Hsia & Ún-giân Iûnn
2021. A corpus-based study of directives in Taiwanese Southern Min. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 300 ff.
Cifuentes-Férez, Paula
2014. A closer look at Paths of vision, Manner of vision and their translation from English into Spanish. Languages in Contrast 14:2 ► pp. 214 ff.
DeCoursey, Christina A. & Aliaa N. Hamad
2019. Emotions across the essay: What second-language writers feel across four weeks’ writing a research essay. English Studies at NBU 5:1 ► pp. 114 ff.
DESAGULIER, GUILLAUME & PHILIPPE MONNERET
2023. Cognitive Linguistics and a Usage‐Based Approach to the Study of Semantics and Pragmatics. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 31 ff.
Fisher, Harwood
2003. Metonymy as concept: A metaphor for rhetoric, not for thought. Semiotica 2003:147
Guarddon-Anelo, María del Carmen
2011. The Role of Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammaticalization: The Expression of Aspect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 211 ff.
Guerrero Medina, Pilar
2020. Meaning construction and motivation in the English benefactive double object construction. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 94 ff.
Komatsubara, Tetsuta
2019. Cognitive principles underlying predicational metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
Kosecki, Krzysztof
2007. On Multiple Metonymies within Indirect Speech Acts . Research in Language 5 ► pp. 213 ff.
Law, James
Law, James
2022. Metonymy and argument alternations in French communication frames. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 387 ff.
LECLERCQ, BENOÎT & ILSE DEPRAETERE
2022. Making meaning with be able to: modality and actualisation. English Language and Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 27 ff.
Li, Shuguang & Klaus-Uwe Panther
2014. ‘Author (date)’ constructions in academic discourse. English Text Construction 7:2 ► pp. 215 ff.
Matusz, Łukasz
2020. I will see it done: Metonymic extensions of the verb see in English. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies :31(4) ► pp. 88 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2016. How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12:2 ► pp. 177 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg
1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30:6 ► pp. 755 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2014. Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 168 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 1. Exploitingwh-questions for expressive purposes. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 18 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 4. The role of inferencing in the interpretation of two expressive speech act constructions. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 109 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018. Chapter 5. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60], ► pp. 121 ff.
Paradis, Carita
2004. Where Does Metonymy Stop? Senses, Facets, and Active Zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19:4 ► pp. 245 ff.
Paszenda, Joanna
2017. Chapter 8. Motivation behind the extended senses of the Polish ditransitive construction. In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 241 ff.
Peng, Yi
2019. The Event-Domain Cognitive Model perspective on terminology: A case study of atmospheric environment terms. Lexicography 6:1 ► pp. 43 ff.
Peña Cervel, María Sandra
2016. Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 474 ff.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Lorena Pérez Hernández
2011. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges. Metaphor and Symbol 26:3 ► pp. 161 ff.
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2019.
But, you see, the problem is … Perception verbs in courtroom talk: Focus on you see
. Topics in Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 24 ff.
Tóth, Máté
Velasco-Sacristán, Marisol
2010. Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors: Evidence from advertising gender metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 42:1 ► pp. 64 ff.
Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona & Maciej Witek
2009. The many faces of speech act theory — editorial to special issue on speech actions. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Zeng, Guocai
2016. A Cognitive Approach to the Event Structures of Wh-dialogic Constructions. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 34:4 ► pp. 311 ff.
Zhang, Weiwei, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts
2015. Cross-linguistic variation in metonymies for PERSON. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 220 ff.
Ziegeler, Debra
2016. Intersubjectivity and the diachronic development of counterfactual almost
. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
ŞEHİTOĞLU, Muammer
2023. Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde Dinleme Eğitiminde Kullanılan Kitapçık Metinlerinde Çok Anlamlılık: Yedi İklim B1-B2. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :11 ► pp. 837 ff.
孙, 姣姣
2022. A New Interpretation of the Phenomenon of Syntactic-Semantic Mismatches in Chinese. Modern Linguistics 10:01 ► pp. 153 ff.
[no author supplied]
2007. Book reviews. Intercultural Pragmatics 4:3
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.