Chapter published in:
Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 5574
References

References

Barcelona, A.
2002Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003aMetonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, K.-U. Panther, & T. Berg (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (223–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003bThe case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing; Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series] (81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007Metonymy in discourse-level meaning construction. In G. Radden et al.. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (51–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Motivation of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing] (363–402). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Metonymy and metaphor in the emergence of the quantifier meaning of the noun ‘lot’. In J. Martín Párraga & J. de D. Torralbo Caballero (Eds.), New Medievalisms (3–18). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2016Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated from with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 30–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
in preparation). On the pervasive role of metonymy in constructional meaning and structure in discourse comprehension: An empirical study from a cognitive linguistic perspective. (Provisional title). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bierwiaczonek, B.
2007On formal metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Perspectives on metonymy’, Held in Lódz, Poland, May 6–7 2005 (43–67). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. H.
2004Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
2009Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (147–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1990aEpistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Papers from Twenty-Six Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lingusitics Society, 137–162. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1990bThe contribution of linguistics to language understanding. In A. Bocaz (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Symposium on Cognition, Language and Culture, 109–128. Santiago: Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
1998Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A.
1988Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
1998A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L.
2003Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
2005The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando, & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castellón (Spain): Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
1999Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
2007High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden et al.. (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (33–50). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
2001Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication 21(4), 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stern, G.
1931Meaning and change of meaning. Göteborg: Eladers boktryckery Aktiebolag.Google Scholar

Dictionaries

Merriam Webster online dictionary.
Oxford English Dictionary
second edition on CD-Rom (OED).
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Barcelona, Antonio
2019.  In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8],  pp. 49 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 january 2021. 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.