Cognitive Modeling

A linguistic perspective

| University of La Rioja, Logroño
| University of La Rioja, Logroño
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027223999 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027270009 | EUR 90.00 | USD 135.00
 
This monograph studies cognitive operations on cognitive models across levels and domains of meaning construction. It explores in what way the same set of cognitive operations, either in isolation or in combination, account for meaning representation whether obtained on the basis of inferential activity or through constructional composition. As a consequence, it makes explicit links between constructional and figurative meaning. The pervasiveness of cognitive operations is explored across the levels of meaning construction (argument, implicational, illocutionary, and discourse structure) distinguished by the Lexical Constructional Model. This model is a usage-based approach to language that reconciles insights from functional and cognitive linguistics and offers a unified account of the principles and constraints that regulate both inferential activity and the constructional composition of meaning. This book is of value to scholars with an interest in linguistic evidence of cognitive activity in meaning construction. The contents relate to the fields of Cognitive Grammar, Cognitive Semantics, Construction Grammar, Functional Linguistics, and Inferential Pragmatics.
[Human Cognitive Processing, 45]  2014.  ix, 250 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
ix
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–15
Chapter 2. Theoretical pre-requisites
17–57
Chapter 3. Cognitive models
59–84
Chapter 4. Cognitive operations
85–145
Chapter 5. Content operations across levels of representation
147–221
Chapter 6. Conclusions
223–226
References
227–244
Name index
245–247
Subject index
249–250
“With its rigorous argumentation and innovative research results, the volume offers an excellent and thorough treatment of cognitive modeling, which has been carried out through a wealth of authentic linguistic data and with reference to other theoretical frameworks addressing phenomena of figurative thought and language. In doing so, it provides the reader with a picture of the multi-faceted complexity of the phenomenon under scrutiny. This is a must-read volume that I strongly recommend to scholars and young researchers with an interest in understanding how cognitive operations instantiate language use.”
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2017.  In Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising [Figurative Thought and Language, 2], Crossref logo
No author info given
2020. An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 Crossref logo
No author info given
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 Crossref logo
Athanasiadou, Angeliki
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Baicchi, Annalisa
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 76 ff. Crossref logo
Barcelona, Antonio
2019.  In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8],  pp. 49 ff. Crossref logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 126 ff. Crossref logo
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. On constructional blocking of metonymies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1  pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2017.  In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58],  pp. 77 ff. Crossref logo
Cortés-Rodriguez, Francisco J.
2017. Revisiting Aktionsart types for lexical classes. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2  pp. 498 ff. Crossref logo
Cortés-Rodríguez, Francisco J. & Carolina Rodríguez-Juárez
2019. The syntactic parsing of ASD-STE100adverbials in ARTEMIS. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 14:1  pp. 59 ff. Crossref logo
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2018. Taming iconicity in the Spanish and Italian translations of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. English Text Construction 11:1  pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo
Kefalidou, Sophia & Angeliki Athanasiadou
2019. APO X, Y. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1  pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Mairal-Usón, Ricardo
2015. Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Miró-Sastre, Ignasi
2018. Combining Metaphors: From Metaphoric Amalgams to Binary Systems. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38:1  pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 18 ff. Crossref logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018.  In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],  pp. 121 ff. Crossref logo
Peña Cervel, María Sandra
2017. Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2  pp. 474 ff. Crossref logo
Peña Cervel, María Sandra & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 42 ff. Crossref logo
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena
2016. The role of mitigation and strengthening cognitive operations in brand names design: a case study of Spanish and American wine brands. Social Semiotics 26:2  pp. 128 ff. Crossref logo
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena & Karine Duvignau
2016. Metaphor, metonymy, and their interaction in the production of semantic approximations by monolingual children: A corpus analysis. First Language 36:4  pp. 383 ff. Crossref logo
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula & Nina Julich
2014. Let’s Talk Music: A Corpus-Based Account of Musical Motion. Metaphor and Symbol 29:4  pp. 298 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2017. Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:1  pp. 299 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José, Alba Luzondo Oyón & Paula Pérez Sobrino
2017.  In Constructing Families of Constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
RUIZ DE MENDOZA-IBÁÑEZ, FRANCISCO & ALBA LUZONDO-OYÓN
2016. Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition 8:1  pp. 32 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 june 2020. 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.

References

References

Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G.
(2000) Irony as a game of implicitness: Acoustic profiles of ironic communication. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 275–311. Crossref link
(2002) From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns of ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology, 37(5), 266–276. Crossref link
Attardo, S.
(2000) Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826. Crossref link
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I.
(2003) Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260. Crossref link
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K.
(1994) Conversational implicature. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. Crossref link
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.
Barbe, K.
(1995) Irony in context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Barcelona, A.
(Ed) (2000a) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2000b) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2002) On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today (pp. 207–224). Frankfurt & Main: Peter Lang.
(2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Barnden, J. A.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. Crossref link
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(Eds) (2011) Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Bergen, B.
(2012) Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Bergh, G.
(2005) Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: what can Google tell us? ICAME Journal, 29, 25–46.
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E.
(2008) Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Berto, F.
(2007) How to sell a contradiction. The logic and metaphysics of inconsistency. London: College Publications.
Bhatt, R.
(1999) Actuality Entailments of Ability Modals. In K. Shahin, S. Blake, & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on formal linguistics (pp. 74–87). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A Constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
(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.
(2008) Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2011) A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Verbal alternations in English (pp. 207–234). London: Equinox.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S.
(Eds) (2008) Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Booth, W. C.
(1975) A Rhetoric of irony. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Boroditsky, L.
(2000) Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. Crossref link
(2001) Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. Crossref link
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K.
(2011) Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123–129. Crossref link
Brdar, M.
(2007) Metonymy in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2005) Scalar models in a cognitive approach to hyperbolic expressions: With a little help from metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Pragmatics today (pp. 75–94). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
(2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Bryant, G. A.
(2010) Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 545–566. Crossref link
(2011) Verbal irony in the wild. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(2), 291–309. Crossref link
(2012) Is verbal irony special? Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 673–685. Crossref link
Bryant, G. A., & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2002) Recognizing verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(2), 99–117. Crossref link
Burgers, C., Van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J.
(2012) Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 231–242. Crossref link
Butler, C. S.
(2009a) Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica, 43(1), 1–66. Crossref link
(2009b) The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2013) Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Butler, C. S., & Taverniers, M.
(2008) Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics, 46(4), 689–956.
Caballero, R.
(2003) Talking about space: Image metaphor in architectural discourse. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 87–105. Crossref link
(2006) Re-viewing space. Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Cadierno, T.
(2004) Expressing motion events in a second language: a cognitive typological approach. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 13–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L.
(2006) Motion events in second language acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216. Crossref link
Cappelle, B.
(2009) The TIME IS SPACE metaphor: Some linguistic evidence that its end is near. In C. Delmas (Ed.), Espace-temps Anglais: Points de vue (pp. 53–62). Paris: Ophrys.
Carston, R.
(1998) Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 179–236). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: a pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. Crossref link
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L.
(2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593. Crossref link
Chen, J.-Y.
(2007) Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 427–436. Crossref link
Chomsky, N.
(1964) Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 121–126. (Reprinted in Gibbs and Colston, 2007, pp. 25–33). Crossref link
Colebrook, C.
(2002) Irony in the work of philosophy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Colston, H. L.
(1997) Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23, 25–45. Crossref link
(2000) On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics and Cognition, 8, 277–324. Crossref link
(2002) Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–142. Crossref link
Colston, H. L, & Gibbs, R. W.
(2007) Introduction. A Brief History of Irony. In R. W. Gibbs, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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. Crossref link
Colston, H. L., & Lee, S. Y.
(2004) Gender differences in verbal irony use. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 289–306. Crossref link
Coslton, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
(2000) Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–1583. Crossref link
Cook, V. J.
(1974) Is explanatory adequacy adequate? Linguistics, 133, 21–32.
Croft, W.
(1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370. Crossref link
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2008) On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 49–58. Crossref link
Cruse, A.
(2004) Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro, 47, 73–96.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Currie, G.
(2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretence, possibility, and fiction (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deignan, A.
(2007) “Image” metaphors and connotations in everyday language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 173–192. Crossref link
Del Campo Martínez, N.
(2011) Cognitive modeling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. Crossref link
Del Campo Martínez, N., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2012) A constructionist approach to illocution: the case of orders. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies, 45, 13–31.
Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E.
(1995) Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347–367. Crossref link
Dews, S., & Winner, E.
(1995) Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 3–19. Crossref link
Diedrichsen, E.
(2013) From idioms to sentence structures and beyond. The theoretical scope of the concept “Construction.” In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 295–330). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Dik, S. C.
(1997a) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(1997b) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)]. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Dirven, R.
(2005) Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 17–68). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
(2014) Cognitive Linguistics three decades later: looking back to look forward. In J. Luchjenbroers, & M. Aldridge-Waddon (Eds.), Conceptual structure and Cognitive Linguistics research. Vol I, grammar, metaphor and blends. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins; vol. in prep.
Dowty, D.
(2000) ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation.’ In Y. Ravi, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy. Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 111–128). New York: Oxford University Press.
(2001) The Semantic Asymmetry of “Argument Alternations” (and Why it Matters). In G. van der Meer, & A. G. ter Meulen (Eds.), Making sense: From lexeme to discourse (pp. 171–186). Groningen: Centre for Language and Cognition.
Dress, M. L., Kreuz, R. J., Link, K. E., & Caucci, G. M.
(2008) Regional variation in the use of sarcasm. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 71–85. Crossref link
Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L.
(1994) Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Eddington, D., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2010) Argument constructions and language processing: evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Edwards, D.
(2000) Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. Crossref link
Elleström, L.
(2002) Divine madness: On interpreting literature, music, and the visual arts ironically. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76 (3), 546–592. Crossref link
Evans, V.
(2004) The structure of time. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2011) Language and cognition: The view from Cognitive Linguistics. In V. Cook, & B. Basseti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 69–108). New York & Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Fauconnier, G.
(1975a) Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 353–375.
(1975b) Polarity and the Scale Principle. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting (pp. 188–199). Chicago Linguistic Society.
(1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1996) Blending as a central process in grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. Crossref link
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J.
(1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam & New York: North-Holland.
(1982) Frame semantics. In (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R.
(2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. Crossref link
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone . Language, 64, 501–538. Crossref link
Forceville, C.
(2009a) The role of non-verbal metaphor sound and music in multimodal metaphor. In C. Forceville, & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 383–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
(2009b) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola, & A. J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). London: Palgrave-McMillan.
Fowler, H. W.
(1965) A dictionary of modern English usage. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galera-Masegosa, A.
(2010a) A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.
(2010b) Metaphoric complexes: a Spanish-English contrastive analysis of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 23, 175–194.
(2012) Constraints on subsumption and amalgamation processes in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of phone and email. Atlantis, 34(2), 167–184.
Galera-Masegosa, A. & Iza, A.
(2014) Conceptual complexity in metaphorical resemblance operations revisited. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Forthcoming.
Galton, A.
(2011) Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 695–703. Crossref link
Geeraerts, D.
(2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2005) Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 163–189). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y.
(2010) Introduction. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 1–22). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 5–27 Crossref link
(2006a) Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–152. Crossref link
(2006b) Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. Crossref link
(2006c) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H.L.
(Eds) (2007) Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbs, R., & Izett, C.
(2005) Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston, & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural factors (pp. 131–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbs, R. W., Lima, P., & Francuzo, E.
(2004) Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1189–1210. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T.
(2008) Metaphor, imagination and simulation: Psycho-linguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Gibbs R. W., & Tendahl, M.
(2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 21, 379–403. Crossref link
Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Levi, N. A., & Sabah, H.
(2005) On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100. Crossref link
Giora, R., Fein, O., Metuki, N., & Stern, P.
(2010) Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. R. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givón, T.
(1985) Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(1995) Isomorphisms in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. In R. Simone (Ed.), Iconicity in language (pp. 47–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Glenwright, M., & Pexman, P. M.
(2010) Development of children’s ability to distinguish sarcasm and verbal irony. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 429–451. Crossref link
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. Crossref link
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. Crossref link
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S.
(2006) Mapping functional cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. Crossref link
Gonzálvez-García, F., Peña, S., & Pérez, L.
(Eds) (2011) Metaphor and Metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1). Reedited in 2013, in Benjamins Current Topics, 56. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. Crossref link
Grady, J.
(1997a) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. Crossref link
(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. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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.
Grice, P. H.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Crossref link
Haiman, J.
(1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56(3), 515–540. Crossref link
(1985) Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(2008) In defence of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 59–66. Crossref link
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2004) An introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd revised edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqayia, H.
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hampe, B.
(In cooperation with Grady, J.) (Eds) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Lin­guistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Hao, Y., & Veale, T.
(2010) An ironic fist in a velvet glove: Creative mis-representation in the construction of ironic similes. Minds and machines, 20(4), 483–488. Crossref link
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L.
(2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Herrera, H., & White, M.
(Eds) (2012) Metaphor and mills. Figurative language in business and economics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Herrero Ruiz, J.
(2009) Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Heyvaert, L.
(2003) A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hidalgo, L., & Kraljevic, B.
(2011) Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez-García, S. Peña, & L. Pérez (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 153–178.
Holdcroft, D.
(1983) Irony as a trope, and irony as discourse. Poetics Today, 4(3), 493–511. Crossref link
Horn, L.
(1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, distributed by IULC.
(1984) A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context (GURT ‘84) (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
(2002) Assertoric Inertia and Scalar Inference. In M. Andronis, E. Deberport, A. Pycha, & K. Yeshimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the panels of the CLS 38, 2 (pp. 58–82). Chicago: CLS.
Ibarretxe Antuñano, I.
(2009) Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Őzçalişkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403–414). New York: Psychology Press.
Israel, M.
(1997) The Scalar Model of Polarity Sensitivity. In D. Forget, P. Hirschbühler, F. Martineau, & M.-L. Rivero (Eds.), Negation: Syntax and semantics (pp. 209–229). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2001) Minimizers, maximizers, and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, 18, 297–331. Crossref link
(2004) The Pragmatics of Polarity. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701–723). Oxford: Blackwell.
Israel, M..
(2011) The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Jackendoff, R.
(1975) On belief contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 53–93.
Jason, G.
(1988) Hedging as a Fallacy of Language. Informal Logic, 10(3), 169–175.
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251–272. Crossref link
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, C. R.
(1999) Constructional grounding: The role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Karttunen, L.
(1971) Implicative Verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358. Crossref link
Katz, A. N., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A.
(2004) Saying what you don’t mean: social influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 186–189. Crossref link
Katz, A.N., & Pexman, P. M.
(1997) Interpreting figurative statements: speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 19–41. Crossref link
Kaufer, D. S.
(1981) Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510. Crossref link
Kay, P., & Fillmore, P.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 75, 1–33. Crossref link
Kemmer, S.
(1993) The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Kemmerer, D.
(2005) The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. Crossref link
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G.
(2003) Introduction to the Special Issue on the Web as Corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
Kövecses, Z.
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
(2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 11–25. Crossref link
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Lin­guistics, 9, 37–77. Crossref link
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: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kreuz, R., & Glucksberg, S.
(1989) How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386. Crossref link
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. Crossref link
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, 3–21. Crossref link
Lakoff, G.
(1987a) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. Crossref link
Lakoff, George.
(1987b) Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(3), 219–222. Crossref link
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Crossref link
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(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.
(2008) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crossref link
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(1991a) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(1991b) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
(1995) Cognitive Grammar. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 105–111). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1­–38. Crossref link
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. Crossref link
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2011) Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Leech, G. N.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leggitt, J., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2000) Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1–24. Crossref link
Lemmens, M.
(2006) More on objectless transitives and ergativization patterns in English. Constructions SV1–6/2006.
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Levinson, S. C.
(2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA & London, England: MIT Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.
(1989) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Liebert, W.-A., Redeker, G., & Waugh, L.
(Eds) (1997) Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Lucariello, J.
(1994) Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 129–145. Crossref link
Mairal, R., & Faber, P.
(2007) Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 137–172. Crossref link
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler, & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A.
(1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.
Marzo, D.
(2011) Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation? The implications of metaphor- and metonymy-based polysemy for transparency in the lexicon. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. (pp. 251–268). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
(2004) There’s millions of them: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 149–184. Crossref link
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A..
(2001 ). Corpus Linguistics. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Michaelis, L.
(2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Minsky, M.
(1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moon, R.
(2008) Conventionalized as-similes in English: A problem case. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 3–37. Crossref link
Narayanan, S.
(2013) To appear in the Proceedings of the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), Edmonton, Canada. Slides from a recent talk available at http://​www1​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~snarayan​/Scales​.pdf.
Nemoto, N.
(2005) Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In M. Fried, & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions. Back to the roots (pp. 119–136). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Niemeier, S.
(2003) ‘Straight from the heart.’ Metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 195–213). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Norrick, N. R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739. Crossref link
Oakley, T.
(2007) Image Schemas. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214–235). New York: Oxford University Press.
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A.
(Eds) (2008) Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2012) Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
(2011a) Introduction. Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(Eds) (2011b) Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. Crossref link
(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. Crossref link
(2000) The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(Eds) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 159–186). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Paradis, C.
(2000) Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic approach on grammaticalization. In R. Bermudez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg, & C. B. McCully (Eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies (pp. 233–258). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Peña, S.
(2003) Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.
(2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. Crossref link
Peña, 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. Crossref link
Pérez, L.
(2001) Metaphor-based cluster models and conceptual interaction: the case of ‘time.’ Atlantis, 23(2), 65–81.
(2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple-source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. Crossref link
Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259–284. Crossref link
(2011) A Lexical Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 99–138.
Priest, G., Beall, J. C., & Armour-Garb, B.
(Eds) (2004) The law of non-contradiction. New philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link
Radden, G.
(2000) How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 93–108). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro, & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English Grammar: The simple sentence. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.
(2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Recanati, F.
(2004a) Embedded implicature. Philosophical perspectives, 17(1): 299–332. Crossref link
(2004b) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2007) Indexicality, context and pretence. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Renouf, A.
(2003) WebCorp: providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: new applications, new challenges (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Rosca, A.
(2012) Bases for the development of ontological semantics within the conceptual domains of change and possession. Implementations and implications for the lexico-syntactic-cognition interface and the development of intelligent agents. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of La Rioja.
Rosch, E.
(1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. Crossref link
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(1983) Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In E. K. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory? (pp. 73–86). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(1997a) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis, 19, 281–295.
(1997b) Some notes on the translation of Spanish -ito/-illo diminutives into English. Pragmalingüística, 3&4, 155–172.
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. Crossref link
(1999) Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.
(2000a) 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.
(2000b) El modelo cognitivo idealizado de ‘tamaño’ y la formación de aumentativos y diminutivos en español. In R. Maldonado (Ed.), Estudios cognoscitivos del español (pp. 355–374). Special monograph co-edited by Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada and Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro.
(2002) From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum. An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 107–143.
(2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
(2008) Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(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. Crossref link
(2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(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 (Forthcoming). London: Bloomsbury.
(2014b) 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. Crossref link
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.
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.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A.
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. Crossref link
(2012) Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: metaphoric chains. In B. Eizaga (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp. 157–185). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez-González, M. A.
(2014) Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional Cognitive Space (pp. 295–313). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2011) Constructional integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Luzondo, A.
(2012) Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Zic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Between universality and variation (pp. 117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
(2007) Levels of semantic representation: where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17, 26–47.
(2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaea, 42(2), 355–400.
(2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK & Oakville, CT: Equinox.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, S.
(2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. Crossref link
(2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. Crossref link
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Santibáñez, F.
(2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2(15), 293–320.
Rumelhart, D. E.
(1975) Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow, & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies on cognitive science (pp. 185–210). New York: Academic Press.
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.
Salkoff, M.
(1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59, 288–346. Crossref link
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C.
(1981) Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R.
(1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Schegloff, E.
(1987) Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218. Crossref link
(2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. Crossref link
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Crossref link
Schmid, Hans-Jörg.
2010Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–134). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., & Aharon-Peretz, J.
(2005) The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 288–300. Crossref link
Slobin, D.
(2004) The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative. Vol. 2 (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slobin, D. I., & Hoiting, N.
(1994) Reference to movement in spoken and sign languages: Typological consideration. Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 487–503).
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1981) Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.
(1985/1986) Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, LXXXVI, 153–71.
(1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. Crossref link
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
(1998) Irony and relevance. A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 283–93). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Steen, G.J.
(2005) Basic discourse acts: Towards a psychological theory of discourse segmentation. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 283–312). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2010) Empirical cognitive semantics: some thoughts. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 357–380). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stockwell, P.
(1999) The Inflexibility of Invariance. Language and Literature, 8(2), 125–42. Crossref link
Swearingen, C. J.
(1991) Rhetoric and irony: Western literacy and western lies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From Etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Talmy, L.
(1978) Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Syntax (pp. 625–649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(1988a) The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(1988b) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. Crossref link
(1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Working Papers in Linguistics, 480–519.
(2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
(2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taylor, J. R.
(1995) Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2nd ed.
Tendahl, M.
(2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref link
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs. R.W.
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. Crossref link
Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D.
(2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics. A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261. Crossref link
Turner, M.
(1991) Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(1998) Figure. In C. Cacciari, R. Gibbs, Jr., A. Katz, & M. Turner (Eds.), Figurative language and thought (pp. 44–87). New York: Oxford University Press.
Urios-Aparisi, E.
(2009) Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville, & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 95–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Van Hoek, K.
(Ed) (1999)  Discourse studies in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference . Amsterdam, July 1997. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Van Valin, R. D.., Jr
(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & LaPolla, R.
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Veale, T., & Hao, Y.
(2010) Detecting Ironic Intent in Creative Comparisons. In H. Coelho, R. Studer, & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), ECAI 2010. 19th European Conference on artificial intelligence. Proceedings. Volume 215 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 765–770). IOS Press.
Vendler, Z.
(1957) Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160. Crossref link
Viberg, Å.
(1984) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.
Wasserman, P., & Schober, M. F.
(2006) Variability in judgements of spoken irony. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 43.
Waugh, L.
(1994) Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(1), 55–70. Crossref link
Waugh, L., & Newfield, M.
(1995) Iconicity in the lexicon and its relevance for a theory of morphology. In M. E. Landsberg (Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension (pp. 189–222). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Wilson, D.
(2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. Crossref link
Wilson D.
(2009) Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 183–226.
Wilson, D.
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 40–56. Crossref link
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2008) Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance theoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3 (2007), 1–40.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2004) Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Zlatev, J., & Yangklang, P.
(2004) A third way to travel. The place of Thai in motion-event typology. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 159–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014011187