Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 9:2 (2019) ► pp.177198
References (48)
References
Barcelona, A. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bell, R. (1991). Translating and translation: Theory and practice. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bellos, D. (2011). Is that a fish in your ear? London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Benczes, R. (2015). Cognitive linguistics is fun: An interview with Günter Radden. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 479–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2007). Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 281, 7–21.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (2004). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 290–305). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2013). Translating (by means of) metonymy. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation (pp. 199–226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Metonymies we (don’t) translate by: The case of complex metonymies. Argumentum, 101, 232–247.Google Scholar
Catford, J. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denroche, C. (2011). The fundamental role of metonymy in conceptualization and communication. In D. Hornsby (Ed.), Interfaces in language 2 (pp. 191–206). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018). Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metaphor and metonymy in discourse. Metaphor in the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fougner Rydning, A. (2012). CTMM as a method to study conceptual metaphtonymies in translation. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaeli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 293–326). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 61–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S. (2007). A cognitive linguistic approach to translation shifts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 21(1), 105–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking translation: A course in translation method, French-English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959/2012). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed.) (pp. 126–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & G. Radden. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics. 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krings, H. (1986). Translation problems and translation strategies of advanced German learners of French (L2). In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 263–276). Tübigen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based translation: a guide to cross-language equivalence (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lederer, M. (1976). Synecdoque et traduction. Études de linguistique appliquée, 241, 13–41.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lodge, D. (1977). The modes of modern writing: Metaphor, metonymy and the typology of modern literature. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2012). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In K. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Sense, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuño (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
(2008). Event metonymies. Paper presented at the Third International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Leipzig, Germany. 25–27 September, 2008.
(2018). Molly married money: reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 161–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Diez Velasco, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Somers, H. (2003). Translation memory systems. In H. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (pp. 31–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies – and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J., & Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation [orig. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais ]. Translated and ed. by J. Sager & M. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. (2016). Variation in metonymy, cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Denroche, Charles
2021. The Three Grammars and the sign. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:1  pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
Denroche, Charles
2023. Translating figurative language. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:1  pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. 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.