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
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.
2016. 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
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1  pp. 19 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
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1  pp. 112 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
2016. 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 24 october 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns of ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology, 37(5), 266–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2000) Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I.
(2003) Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K.
(1994) Conversational implicature. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. CrossrefGoogle 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
Barbe, K.
(1995) Irony in context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(Ed) (2000a) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(Eds) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B.
(2012) Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bergh, G.
(2005) Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: what can Google tell us? ICAME Journal, 29, 25–46.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Berto, F.
(2007) How to sell a contradiction. The logic and metaphysics of inconsistency. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A Constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(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
(2008) Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S.
(Eds) (2008) Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booth, W. C.
(1975) A Rhetoric of irony. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2000) Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K.
(2011) Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118, 123–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2007) Metonymy in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A.
(2010) Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 545–566. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Verbal irony in the wild. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(2), 291–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Is verbal irony special? Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 673–685. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A., & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2002) Recognizing verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(2), 99–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S.
(2009a) Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica, 43(1), 1–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Taverniers, M.
(2008) Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics, 46(4), 689–956.Google Scholar
Caballero, R.
(2003) Talking about space: Image metaphor in architectural discourse. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 87–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Re-viewing space. Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Ruiz, L.
(2006) Motion events in second language acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: a pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L.
(2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J.-Y.
(2007) Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 427–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1964) Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
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). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colebrook, C.
(2002) Irony in the work of philosophy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L.
(1997) Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23, 25–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics and Cognition, 8, 277–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & Lee, S. Y.
(2004) Gender differences in verbal irony use. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 289–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J.
(1974) Is explanatory adequacy adequate? Linguistics, 133, 21–32.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 49–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A.
(2004) Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro, 47, 73–96.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2007) “Image” metaphors and connotations in everyday language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 173–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N.
(2011) Cognitive modeling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E.
(1995) Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dews, S., & Winner, E.
(1995) Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 3–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1997b) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)]. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.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
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L.
(1994) Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Edwards, D.
(2000) Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elleström, L.
(2002) Divine madness: On interpreting literature, music, and the visual arts ironically. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76 (3), 546–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2004) The structure of time. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1975a) Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 353–375.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. CrossrefGoogle 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. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam & New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In (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., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R.
(2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W.
(1965) A dictionary of modern English usage. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galera-Masegosa, A.
(2010a) A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.Google Scholar
(2010b) Metaphoric complexes: a Spanish-English contrastive analysis of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 23, 175–194.Google Scholar
(2012) Constraints on subsumption and amalgamation processes in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of phone and email. Atlantis, 34(2), 167–184.Google Scholar
Galera-Masegosa, A. & Iza, A.
(2014) Conceptual complexity in metaphorical resemblance operations revisited. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Galton, A.
(2011) Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 695–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 5–27 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006c) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H.L.
(Eds) (2007) Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Lima, P., & Francuzo, E.
(2004) Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1189–1210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs R. W., & Tendahl, M.
(2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 21, 379–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Isomorphisms in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. In R. Simone (Ed.), Iconicity in language (pp. 47–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S.
(2006) Mapping functional cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997a) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997b) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56(3), 515–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985) Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) In defence of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 59–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2004) An introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd revised edition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Ruqayia, H.
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hampe, B.
(In cooperation with Grady, J.) (Eds) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Lin­guistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L.
(2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herrera, H., & White, M.
(Eds) (2012) Metaphor and mills. Figurative language in business and economics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herrero Ruiz, J.
(2009) Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, L.
(2003) A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, D.
(1983) Irony as a trope, and irony as discourse. Poetics Today, 4(3), 493–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.
(1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, distributed by IULC.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2001) Minimizers, maximizers, and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, 18, 297–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) The Pragmatics of Polarity. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701–723). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Israel, M..
(2011) The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1975) On belief contexts. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 53–93.Google Scholar
Jason, G.
(1988) Hedging as a Fallacy of Language. Informal Logic, 10(3), 169–175.Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. R.
(1999) Constructional grounding: The role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L.
(1971) Implicative Verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A.N., & Pexman, P. M.
(1997) Interpreting figurative statements: speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 19–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaufer, D. S.
(1981) Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, P.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 75, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S.
(1993) The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D.
(2005) The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G.
(2003) Introduction to the Special Issue on the Web as Corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 11–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Lin­guistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle 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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kreuz, R., & Glucksberg, S.
(1989) How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386. CrossrefGoogle 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. 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, 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987a) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George.
(1987b) Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(3), 219–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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
(2008) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991a) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991b) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Cognitive Grammar. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 105–111). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1­–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leggitt, J., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2000) Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(2006) More on objectless transitives and ergativization patterns in English. Constructions SV1–6/2006.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA & London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.
(1989) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Liebert, W.-A., Redeker, G., & Waugh, L.
(Eds) (1997) Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucariello, J.
(1994) Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 129–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Faber, P.
(2007) Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 137–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A.
(1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
(2004) There’s millions of them: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 149–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A..
(2001 ). Corpus Linguistics. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Moon, R.
(2008) Conventionalized as-similes in English: A problem case. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 3–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A.
(Eds) (2008) Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 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). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012) Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds) (2011b) Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(Eds) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Peña, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, L.
(2001) Metaphor-based cluster models and conceptual interaction: the case of ‘time.’ Atlantis, 23(2), 65–81.Google Scholar
(2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple-source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) A Lexical Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 99–138.Google Scholar
Priest, G., Beall, J. C., & Armour-Garb, B.
(Eds) (2004) The law of non-contradiction. New philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English Grammar: The simple sentence. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
(2004a) Embedded implicature. Philosophical perspectives, 17(1): 299–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004b) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Indexicality, context and pretence. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(1997a) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis, 19, 281–295.Google Scholar
(1997b) Some notes on the translation of Spanish -ito/-illo diminutives into English. Pragmalingüística, 3&4, 155–172.Google Scholar
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle 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 (Forthcoming). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2011) Constructional integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
(2007) Levels of semantic representation: where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17, 26–47.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Santibáñez, F.
(2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2(15), 293–320.Google Scholar
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.Google 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
Salkoff, M.
(1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59, 288–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C.
(1981) Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R.
(1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.
(1987) Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1985/1986) Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, LXXXVI, 153–71.Google Scholar
(1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P.
(1999) The Inflexibility of Invariance. Language and Literature, 8(2), 125–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swearingen, C. J.
(1991) Rhetoric and irony: Western literacy and western lies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From Etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1988a) The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988b) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Working Papers in Linguistics, 480–519.Google Scholar
(2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1995) Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Tendahl, M.
(2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs. R.W.
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(1991) Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D.., Jr
(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & LaPolla, R.
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1957) Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1984) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.Google Scholar
Wasserman, P., & Schober, M. F.
(2006) Variability in judgements of spoken irony. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 43.Google Scholar
Waugh, L.
(1994) Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(1), 55–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson D.
(2009) Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 183–226.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 40–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2004) Relevance theory. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014011187 | Marc record