Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 4273
References

References

Anderson, J. R.
2010Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. J.
1998The atomic components of thought. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Binsted, K.
2003The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (79–92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bergh, G.
2005Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: What can Google tell us? ICAME Journal , 29, 25–46.Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E.
2008Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (309–327). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bhaya, R.
1985Telling lies: Some literary and other violations of Grice’s maxim of quality. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 14, 53–71.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B.
2013Metonymy in language, thought, and brain. London & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Byrne, R. M. J.
2007Precis of the rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(5–6), 439–453.Google Scholar
Cano, L.
2003–2004At the risk of exaggerating: How do listeners react to hyperbole? Anglogermanica Online 2 ([URL])
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
2011Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C.
2011 Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.
1996Psychology of language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
2000Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30, 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2010Looking 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 (13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1982Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
2000Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
2012Interpreting figurative meaning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
1999A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. H.
1975Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Haverkate, H.
1990A speech-act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 77–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero, J.
2009Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hopper, P J., & Traugott, E. C.
2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. D.
2010Hyperboles: The rhetoric of excess in Baroque literature and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G.
2003Introduction to the special issue on the Web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2005Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R., & Roberts, R.
1995Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 21–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunneman, F., Liebrecht, C., van den Bosch, A., & van Mulken, M.
2014Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing and Management. DOI logo
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
1989More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lausberg, H.
1990Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1983Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leisi, E.
1953Der Wortinhalt: seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
2015Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R.
2004 “There’s millions of them”: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
2004Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1727–1739. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
1986Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A.
2003WebCorp: 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 (39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.
1978Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R.
2013How metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theoretic account of loose use. In D. Mazzarella, I. Needham-Didsbury, & K. Tang (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 35 (20–45).([URL]).
2015Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 24–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
1998On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view (103–123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Meaning 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 (231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
2007Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
2014Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A.
2016Figurative and non-figurative motion in English resultative constructions. Language and Cognition, 8, 32–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
2008Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, M. S.
2005Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (251–280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
2011The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sert, O.
2008An interactive analysis of hyperboles in a British TV series: Implications for EFL classes. ARECLS, 5, 1–28 ([URL]).
2009Developing interactional competence by using TV series in ‘English as an additional language’ classrooms. Enletawa Journal, 2, 23–50 ([URL]).
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
1995Relevance, communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spitzbardt, H.
1963Overstatement and understatement in British and American English. Philologica Pragensia, 6, 277–286.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K.
2013Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van der Henst, J.-B., & Sperber, D.
2012Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (279–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
1991 The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Veale, T.
2012Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity . London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Wilson, M.
2002Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
2012Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
1953Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 14 other publications

Barnden, John
2018. Broadly reflexive relationships, a special type of hyperbole, and implications for metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol 33:3  pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John
2023. Irony, Exaggeration, and Hyperbole: No Embargo on the Cargo!. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought,  pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2017. Chapter 7. Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1],  pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1  pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Galera Masegosa, Alicia
2020. The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1  pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2020. Metonymy meets coercion. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9],  pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Martínez, Inmaculada Penadés
2023. Las locuciones hiperbólicas. Yearbook of Phraseology 14:1  pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Peña Cervel, Ma Sandra
2022. For Better, for Worse, for Richer, for Poorer, in Sickness and in Health: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Merism. Metaphor and Symbol 37:3  pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Peña-Cervel, María Sandra
2022. Lexical blending in terms of cognitive modeling. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17],  pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela
2020. Mind the gap. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10],  pp. 449 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020. Figurative language. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10],  pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
2023. Irony, Affect, and Related Figures. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought,  pp. 235 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 february 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.