Chapter published in:
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 126149
References

References

Barcelona, A.
2012Metonymy in, under and above the lexicon. In S. M. Alegre, M. Moyel, E. Pladevall & S. Tubau (Eds.), At a time of crisis: English and American studies in Spain. Works from the 35th AEDEAN Conference UAB/Barcelona 14–16 November 2011 (254–271). Barcelona: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & AEDEAN.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O.
2000The grammaticality of extragrammatical morphology. In U. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (61–84). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
1983English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L, Huddleston R.
2002Lexical word-formation. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (1621–1721). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
2007Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
2009Metonymy-induced polysemy and the role of suffixation in its resolution in some Slavic languages. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 58–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar M., & Brdar-Szabó, & R.
2014Croatian place suffixations in -ište: Polysemy and metonymy. In F. Polzenhagen, Z. Kövecses, S. Vogelbacher & S. Kleinke (Eds.), Cognitive explorations into metaphor and metonymy (293–322). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
2008On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovlje 9, 171–194.Google Scholar
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T.
1995Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G.
2000Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
2005Word formation in natural morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M.
1984West Greenlandic. London, Sydney & Dover: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fradin, B.
2003Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1949A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 3: Syntax. Vol. 2. London & Copenhagen: George Allen & Unwinn & Ejner Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
2001Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2, 201–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
1998Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kreidler, Ch.
2000Clipping and acronymy. In G. E. Booij, Ch. Lehmann, J. Mugdan, W. Kesselheim & S. Skopeteas (Eds.), Morphology: An international handbook of inflection and word-formation, Vol. 1 (956–963). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
2009Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & Barcelona, A. (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H.
1969The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E.
2013Extra-grammatical morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M.
1991The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: the grammaticization of subjects. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine, (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume 2: Focus on types of grammatical markers [Typological Studies in Language 19.2] (161–184). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, D.
2001Auto – bil, Reha – rehab, Mikro – mick, Alki – alkis: Kurzwörter im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Skandinavistik 31(2), 167–199.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G.
1979The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosphy, 3, 143–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
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
2000The EFFECT-FOR-CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
(Eds.) 2009Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J., & Huddleston, R.
2002Nouns and noun phrases. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (323–523). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
2003Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M.
2000Introduction. In M. Pütz and M. Verspoor (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity (ix–xvi). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A.
2002Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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., & Otal Campo, J. L.
2002Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña Cervel, S.
2002Cognitive operations and and projection spaces. Jezikoslovlje, 3, 131–158.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
2001Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., & Minkova, D.
2001English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweep, J.
2012Metonymical object changes: A corpus-oriented study on Dutch and German. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Waltereit, R.
1999Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden, (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2017. On constructional blocking of metonymies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1  pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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.