Part of
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 303322
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 3 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.