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. 121160
References

References

Aliseda, A.
2006Abductive reasoning: Logical investigations into discovery and explanation (Synthese Library: Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science 30). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2000On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (Topics in English Linguistics 30) (31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (Human Cognitive Processing 28) (7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(Eds.) 2011Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (Human Cognitive Processing 28). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bierwiarczonek, B.
2013Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
2014aWhere does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 313–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014bIn search of motivation in language: An interview with Klaus-Uwe Panther. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 223–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buchler, J.
(Ed.) 1955Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Carston, R.
2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
2006On explaining metonymy: Comments on Peirsman and Geeraerts “Metonymy as a prototypical category”. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 317–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, G.
2002On the misuse of the notion of ‘abduction’ in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics, 38, 469–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B.
1975Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) (187–210). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
1997Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haser, V.
2005Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics (Topics in English Linguistics 49). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, H.
1970Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R.
2001Syntax and metonymy. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (290–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G.
2005Thinking and reasoning: A reader’s guide. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (1–9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Honderich, T.
(Ed.) 1995The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B.
2007Semantics: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
2002The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research 20) (41–47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L.
2014Metonymy and word-formation revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 25, 341–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
1999Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (139–167). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M., Panther, K.-U., & Zubin, D.
2010Motivating grammatical and conceptual gender agreement in German. In H.-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 13) (171–194). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2002Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
1998Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic BookGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
2015Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
2009Intuitive and reflective inferences. In J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (140–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musson, G., & Tietze, S.
2004Place and spaces: The role of metonymy in organizational talk. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1302–1323.Google Scholar
Nyrop, K.
1913Grammaire historique de la langue française. Vol. IV. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordsk Forlag.Google Scholar
Paavola, S.
2005Peircean abduction: Instinct or inference. Semiotica, 153, 131–154.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
2003 Review of F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and J. L. Otal Campo (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication (Colección Estudios de Lengua Inglesa 7). Albolote: Editorial Comares. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 276–288.Google Scholar
2005aInaugural lecture: Metonymic reasoning inside and outside language. In A. Makkai, W. J. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds.), LACUS FORUM XXXI: Interconnections (13–32). Houston: The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.Google Scholar
2005bThe role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32) (353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
2006Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (Applications in Cognitive Linguistics 1) (147–185). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
2009Grammatische versus konzeptuelle Kongruenz. Oder: Wann siegt das natürliche Geschlecht? In R. Brdar-Szabó, E. Knipf-Komlósi, & A. Péteri (Eds.), An der Grenze zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik (Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft 3) (67–86). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011Taking stock of figurative language and grammar: Results and prospects. Metaphorik.de, 21, 21–45.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 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 (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U, & Thornburg, L. L.
2003aIntroduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series 113) (1–20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
2003bMetonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25) (1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27, 168–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A.
1996Figurative language and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Language and Literature, 5, 179–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, H.
1970Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
2006Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–313.Google Scholar
Petitto, L.-A.
2005How the brain begets language. In J. McGilvray (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Chomsky (84–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
1996The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G.
2009Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25) (199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
1999Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N.
2002When is a metonymy no longer a metonymy. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research 20) (379–406). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robert, P.
et al. 1992Le Petit Robert: Dictionnaire de la langue française. Paris: Robert.Google Scholar
Romero, A.
2012When whales became mammals: the scientific journey of cetaceans from fish to mammals in the history of science. In A. Romero & E. O. Keith (Eds.), New approaches to the study of marine mammals (4–30). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
2014Cognitive modeling: A linguistics perspective (Human Cognitive Processing 45). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
2000The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (109–133). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N.
1975Synecdoques et métonymies. Poétique, 6, 371–388.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thagard, P.
2007Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanisms. In A. Feeney & E. Heit (Eds.), Inductive reasoning: Experimental, developmental, and computational approaches (226–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waag, A.
1901Bedeutungsentwicklung unseres Wortschatzes. Lahr i. B.: Moritz Schauenburg.Google Scholar
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
Denroche, Charles
2019. Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation. Metaphor and the Social World 9:2  pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo
Ureña Gómez-Moreno, José Manuel
2020. Review of Bolognesi, Brdar & Despot (2019): Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:2  pp. 576 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.