Article in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp. 458479
References

References

Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S.
(2009) The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. S. Butler & M. A. Javier (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G.
(2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretence, possibility, and fiction (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Kay, P.
(1993) Construction Grammar coursebook. (Reading Materials for Ling. X20). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1) 37–74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L.
(2002) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Pörings & R. Dirven (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1(3), 323–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. H.
(1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A.
(2016) The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M.
(1995) How about another piece of the pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1974) Syntactic amalgams. In papers from the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, 2014.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L.
(2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 159–186). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2000) The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G.
(2002) How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Pörings & R. Dirven (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93–108). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
(2007) Indexicality, context and pretence. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reda, G.
(2017a) Teaching syntactic relations: A cognitive semiotic perspective. Language and Semiotic Studies, 3(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
(2017b) Conceptual projection and religion. In C. N. Kasumi (Ed.), Religion: Mental religion (pp.179–194). Part of the Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks: Religion series. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
(2012) A study of two Qur’anic counterfactuals: An application of a model of conceptual projection and integration. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 139–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J.
(2017) Cognitive modeling and irony. In A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) High level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2012) Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: Metaphoric chains. In E. R. Bárbara (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp.153–181). Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, I. F. J., & Rosca, A.
(2013) Lexical classes and constructions: An analysis of the constructional realization of entity-specific change-of-state English verbs. EXELL, 1(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1975) Indirect speech acts. In C. Pete, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., Jr.
(2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & LaPolla, R.
(1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar