Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 193210
References
Barcelona, A
2000The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bauer, L
1979On the need for pragmatics in the study of nominal compounding. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 45–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983English Word-formation [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010The typology of exocentric compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311] (167–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R
2006Creative compounding in English. The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations [Human Cognitive Processing 19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B
2013Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, B
2012O złożeniach rzeczownikowo-rzeczownikowych i zestawieniach przymiotnikowo-rzeczownikowych w języku angielskim. In P. Sznurkowski, E. Pawlikowska-Asendrych, & B. Rusek (Eds.), Neofilologie na przełomie tysiącleci. Najnowsze tendencje w literaturze, językoznawstwie, przekładzie i glottodydaktyce (319–330). Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo AJD.Google Scholar
Diez, O
2001–2002. Metaphor, metonymy, and image schemas: An analysis of conceptual interaction patterns. Journal of English Studies, 3, 47–63.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
2002The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (435–465). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L
2002[1990]Metaphtonymy. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (349–377). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
2003[1980]Metaphors we live by. With a new afterword. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
1999Grammar and conceptualization [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I
2003Word-Formation in English [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z
1999Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4] (17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F
2000The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective [Topics in English Linguistics 30] (109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view [Human Cognitive Processing 28] (103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Diez, O
2002Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast [Cognitive Linguistics Research 20] (489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, S., & Vogel, I
2010Why compounding? In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311] (1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A
2005Word-formation and syntax. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 64] (73–98). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szymanek, B
1989Introduction to morphological analysis. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L.L., & Panther, K.-U
2000Why we subject incorporate (in English). A post-Whorfian view. In M. Pütz & M.H. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 199] (319–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Sources

AHD – The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
. Fourth Edition 2000 Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
CED – Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged
2003 Retrieved October 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
CTEL – Collins Thesaurus of the English Language
2002 Retrieved September 12, 2014 from [URL].Google Scholar
FFD – Farlex Financial Dictionary
2012 Retrieved October 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
OED – Oxford English Dictionary
. Second Edition 1989 Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
SMD – Segen’s Medical Dictionary
2012 Retrieved October 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
WN – WordNet 3.1
2014 Retrieved September 9, 2014 from [URL].Google Scholar
WRUD – Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
1913 Retrieved October, 15, 2014, from [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Cetnarowska, Bozena
2016. Headedness of coordinate compounds in Polish and English. In Studies in Lexicogrammar [Human Cognitive Processing, 54],  pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Kuczok, Marcin
2020. The Interplay of Metaphor and Metonymy in Christian Symbols. Metaphor and Symbol 35:4  pp. 236 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 march 2024. 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.