Chapter published in:
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 106124
References

References

Baicchi, A.
2014How to do things with metonymy. Illocutionary scenarios and constructional procedures. Paper presented at the 1st International Symposium on Figurative Thought and Language. 25–26 April 2014. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2011The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus XXIII(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Bella, S.
2005Cognitive motivation and pragmatic function of the Greek deictics. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 6, 39–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Pragmatic development in a foreign language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1917–1947. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.
1989Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brisard, F.
2006Logic, subjectivity, and the semantics/ pragmatics distinction. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (41–74). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
1985Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N.
2011aA constructional approach to the expression of illocutionary meaning: An analysis of constructions performing the speech acts of requesting and begging. RESLA, 24, 43–60.Google Scholar
2011bA lexical-constructional approach to illocutionary constructions: The case of requests. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 6, 83–94.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S.
1982The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1989Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language, 13(1), 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Householder F. W., Kazazis, K., & Koutsoudas, A.
1964Reference grammar of literary Dhimotiki. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. E.
2007A construction-based study of English predicators. Ph.D. dissertation. Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved from http://​static​.sdu​.dk​/mediafiles​/Files​/Information​_til​/Studerende​_ved​_SDU​/Din​_uddannelse​/phd​_hum​/afhandlinger​/2007​/JensenKimEbensgaard​.pdf
Klairis, C., & Babiniotis, G.
, in cooperation with Mozer, A., Bakakou-Orfanou, A., & Skopetea, S. 2005Grammatiki tis Neas Ellinikis [Modern Greek grammar]. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1991Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009aInvestigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bCognitive grammar. In D. Sandra, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Cognition and pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 3] (78–85). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
1983Principles of pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
1994 [1977]Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackridge, P.
1985The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S.
2000Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A.
2012The reality status of directives and its coding across languages. Language Sciences, 34, 147–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mortelmans, T.
2007Modality in cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (869–889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Niemeier, S.
2013A cognitive grammar perspective on tense and aspect. In R. Salaberry & L. Comajoan (Eds.), Research design and methodology in studies on l2 tense and aspect (11–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J., Byloo, P., Diepeveen, J.
2005On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: A case study of Dutch mogen and moeten. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 110.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
1998A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century (53–76). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K. U. Panther, L. Thornburg, A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Radden, G.
2011Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Hernández, L.
2001Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja. Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
2013Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication, 33, 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Hernández, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2002Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raptis, K.
1995aPlagies glossikes praxeis kai grammatikopoiisi [Indirect speech acts and grammaticalization]. Meletes gia tin Elliniki Glossa [Studies in Greek Linguistics] 15, 629–638.Google Scholar
1995bConcatenated Imperatives in Modern Greek. In G. Drachman et al. (Eds.), Greek Linguistics 95. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics (589–598). Graz: Neugebauer Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
2007Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In K. Istvan & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (95–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A.
1990 [1985]Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. I (155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1969Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D.
1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M.
1992Politeness phenomena in England and Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
2003A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (105–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003msThe English imperative: A construction-based approach. Unpublished manuscript, Universität Bremen. Retrieved from http://​www​.stefanowitsch​.de​/anatol​/fu​-berlin​/p​/ms​-stefanowitsch2003​_eicba​.pdf.
Takahashi, H.
2012A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives [Human Cognitive Processing 35]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsangalidis, A.
2004Unidirectionality in the grammaticalization of modality in Greek. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization (193–209). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2001The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In M. Pütz, R. Dirven & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition (63–105). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tzartzanos, A.
1996 [1946]Neoelliniki Syntaxis (tis koinis dimotikis) [Modern Greek Syntax]. Vol. A. Thessaloniki: Kyriakides Bros.Google Scholar
Veloudis, Y.
2010Apo ti simasiologia tis ellinikis glossas: Opseis tis ‘epistimikis tropikotitas’ [Greek language semantics: Aspects of ‘epistemic modality’]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies (Manolis Triandafyllides Foundation).Google Scholar
Verhagen, A.
2005Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar