Part of
Metonymy and Pragmatic InferencingEdited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] 2003
► pp. 1–20
Edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113] 2003
► pp. 1–20
Introduction
On the nature of conceptual metonymy
Cited by
Cited by 24 other publications
Bierwiaczonek, Bogusław
2020. Figures of speech revisited. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 226 ff. 
Brdar, Mario & Rita Brdar-Szabó
2022. Targetting metonymic targets. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16], ► pp. 59 ff.
Catalano, Theresa & John W. Creswell
2013. Understanding the Language of the Occupy Movement. Qualitative Inquiry 19:9 ► pp. 664 ff.
Catalano, Theresa, Jill Fox & Saloshna Vandeyar
2016. Being “in a Limbo”: Perceptions of Immigration, Identity and Adaptation of Immigrant Students in South Africa and the United States. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 15:3 ► pp. 137 ff.
Chang, Miao-Hsia & Ún-giân Iûnn
2021. A corpus-based study of directives in Taiwanese Southern Min. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 300 ff.
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.
Haferland, Harald & Armin Schulz
2010. Metonymisches Erzählen. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 84:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog
2009. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis,
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse. Topics in Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Komatsubara, Tetsuta
2019. Cognitive principles underlying predicational metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
Kosecki, Krzysztof
2007. On Multiple Metonymies within Indirect Speech Acts . Research in Language 5 ► pp. 213 ff.
Li, Shuguang & Klaus-Uwe Panther
2014. ‘Author (date)’ constructions in academic discourse. English Text Construction 7:2 ► pp. 215 ff.
Martin, Paul & Pam Papadelos
2017. Who stands for the norm? The place of metonymy in androcentric language. Social Semiotics 27:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
Matusz, Łukasz
2020. I will see it done: Metonymic extensions of the verb see in English. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies :31(4) ► pp. 88 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2016. ‘Quo Vadimus?’ from a Cognitive Linguistic Perspective. Chinese Semiotic Studies 12:1 ► pp. 93 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2014. Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 27:1 ► pp. 168 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 1. Exploitingwh-questions for expressive purposes. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 18 ff.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018. Chapter 5. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60], ► pp. 121 ff.
Sólyom, Réka
2020. Neologisms in Hungarian terms of quality assurance. Taikomoji kalbotyra :14 ► pp. 72 ff.
Velasco-Sacristán, Marisol
2010. Metonymic grounding of ideological metaphors: Evidence from advertising gender metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 42:1 ► pp. 64 ff.
Vilar Lluch, Sara
2022. Redefining attitude for studying explicit and indirect evaluations of human behaviour. Functions of Language 29:2 ► pp. 199 ff.
Zibin, Aseel, Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh & Elham T. Hussein
2020. On the comprehension of metonymical expressions by Arabic-speaking EFL learners: A cognitive linguistic approach. Topics in Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 45 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 2023. 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.