Chapter published in:
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 76104
References

References

Baicchi, A.
2009The AUX-NP Requestive Construction and its metonymic grounding within the Lexical Constructional Model. Lecture delivered at the International CRAL Conference 2009. University of La Rioja.Google Scholar
2012On acting and thinking. Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa, ETS.Google Scholar
2014Speech acts as high-level situational cognitive models. In M. E. Schulze-Busacker & V. Fortunati (Eds.), Par les siècles et par les genres (23–50). Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
2015Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 106–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibánéz, F. J.
2010The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, XXIII(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Butler C. S.
1996On the concept of an interpersonal metafunction in English. In M. Berry, C. S. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations. Norwood, N.J. Ablex: 151–182.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálves-García, F.
2014Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
2014What does grammar tell us about social actions? Pragmatics 24(3), 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Del Campo, N.
2013Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dik, S.
1997The theory of functional grammar: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin & New York, Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(2005) Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In A. Baicchi et al. (Eds.), Modeling thought and constructing meaning. Cognitive models in interactions. (pp. 11–40). Milan, Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
1990Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
1999Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K.U Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (61–76), Amsterdam, John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
1995A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday M. A. K., & Matthiessen C.
2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1983Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech G.
1990Semantics. The Study of Meaning. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2009Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
1998A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U., and Thornburg
Eds. 2003Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S.
1965Collected Papers. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
2009Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 40, 62–93.Google Scholar
2012Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, ,, 189–210.Google Scholar
2013Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33, 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L., Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2002Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8, 99–138.Google Scholar
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T., & Siemund, P.
2007 (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
2006Illocutionary constructions. Linguistic LAUD Agency. Series A. General & Theoretical Papers. Essen, LAUD 2006. Paper no. 668.Google Scholar
2007Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. 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 Masegosa, A.
2014Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
2011Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, XVII, 75–95.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal Usón, 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
Sadock, J., & Zwicky, A.
1985Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Clause structure (155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
1969Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.
1996From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson, (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H.
1996Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.
1995Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K. U.
1997Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (205–219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1985What people say they do with words. Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, N.J., Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar