Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 303322
References

References

Arcand, R., & Bourbeau, N.
(1995) La communication efficace. De l’intention aux moyens d’expression. Anjou (Québec): CEC.Google Scholar
Brandt, L.
(2008) A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In T. Oakley, & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 109–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language and enunciation – A cognitive inquiry with special focus on conceptual integration in semiotic meaning construction. PhD dissertation. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
(2013) The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brandt, P.A.
(2004) Spaces, domains, and meaning: Essays in cognitive semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J.
(2005) Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1974) Frame analysis – An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1960) Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(2001) Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes, 12, 7–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leushuis, M.
(2015) De conversationele metafoor als communicatiestrategie: Een onderzoek naar de weergave hiervan in product – en ideële reclame. Master’s thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
McGregor, W.B.
(1994) The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 14(1), 63–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E.
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 68.Google Scholar
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, T.A.J.M.
(2013) Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollo, M.
(2007) Mass media appropriations: Communication, culture, and everyday social life. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Tannen, D.
(1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Fonseca, Paula, Esther Pascual & Todd Oakley
2020. “Hi, Mr. President!”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1  pp. 180 ff. Crossref logo
Pascual, Esther, Aline Dornelas & Todd Oakley
2017. When “Goal!” means ‘soccer’. Pragmatics & Cognition 24:3  pp. 315 ff. Crossref logo
Pascual, Esther & Emilia Królak
2018. The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:2  pp. 399 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 august 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.