Article published in:
Living Metaphors and Metonymies
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1] 2022
► pp. 258289
References
Aitchison, J.
(1994) ‘Say, say it again Sam’: The treatment of repetition in linguistics. In A. Fischer (Ed.), Repetition (pp. 15–34). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(2003a) The 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 (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003b) Names: A metonymic “return ticket” in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.Google Scholar
(2004) Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) The fundamental role of metonymy in cognition, meaning, communication and form. In A. Baicchi, C. Broccias & A. Sansó (Eds.), Modelling thought and constructing meaning. Cognitive models in interaction (pp. 109–124). Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
(2007) The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level: A case study. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Partitive restrictive modification of names in English: Arguments for their metonymic motivation. Quaderns de filología. Estudis lingüístics, 141, 33–56.Google Scholar
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R.
(2019) Visual metonymy and framing in political communication. In A. Benedek & K. Nyíri (Eds.), Image and metaphor in the new century (pp. 17–28). Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics.Google Scholar
Berberović, S.
(2007) Construction of metaphoric and metonymic meaning of personal names in English. (MA), University of Tuzla, Tuzla.Google Scholar
Biernacka, E.
(2013) A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. (PhD), The Open University, Milton Keyes.Google Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P.
(2019) How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language & Communication, 691, 26–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.
(2017) Intensification and metonymy in some XYZ constructions: From the Bible to Einstein. LaMiCus – Language, Mind, Culture and Society, 11, 110–134.Google Scholar
(2019) On the life cycle of metaphors: The case of the conductor metaphor in medical discourse. In S. Gudurić & B. Radić-Bojanić (Eds.), Jezici i kulture u vremenu i prostoru VIII/1 (pp. 381–390). Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet/Pedagoško društvo Vojvodine.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) The role of metaphors and metonymies in framing the transplantation discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 305–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó
2022). Targetting metonymic targets. In M. Brdar & R. Brdar-Szabó Eds. Figurative thought and language in action pp. 59 86 Amsterdam & Philadelphia John Benjamins Crossref
Brdar, M. & Brdar-Szabó
fc.). Metonymy typologies revisited: Adding the interaction and integration of metonymies into the picture. In H. Colston Ed. What makes a figure? Amsterdam & Philadelphia John Benjamins
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2021) Metonymic indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language – Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 211–247). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
fc.). Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or: How metonymies get piggybacked across modalities by other metonymies and metaphors. In A. Bagasheva Ed. Figurative thought and language Amsterdam & Philadelphia John Benjamins
Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A.
(1994) The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21 (1), 48–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catalano, T., & Waugh, L. R.
(2013) The language of money: How verbal and visual metonymy shapes public opinion about financial events. International Journal of Language.Google Scholar
Essed, P.
(1991) Understanding everyday racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Feagin, J. R.
(1991) The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 101–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C.
(2009) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola & A. J. M. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
(2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(2), 115–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Givoni, S., Heruti, V., & Fein, O.
(2017) The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(1), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gradečak, T.
(2020) Metaphorical frames we live by: An interview with Professor Elena Semino. Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 275–283.Google Scholar
Kazoleas, D. C.
(1993) A comparison of the persuasive effectiveness of qualitative versus quantitative evidence: a test of explanatory hypotheses. Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 40–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimble, J. J., & Olson, L. C.
(2006) Visual rhetoric representing Rosie the Riveter: Myth and misconception in J. Howard Miller’s “We Can Do It!” poster. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 9(4), 533–569.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2005) Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., Sobrino, P. P., Houghton, D., Shi, J., & Winter, B.
(2018) What makes a good metaphor? A cross-cultural study of computer-generated metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 101–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lozano-Palacio, I., Brdar, M. & and Brdar-Szabó
fc). The deep, deep irony of winning the battle over coronavirus. In S. Kefalidou & V. Pavlopoulou Eds. Coronavirus and figuration
Myers, K. A., & Williamson, P.
(2001) Race talk: The perpetuation of racism through private discourse. Race and Society, 4(1), 3–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M.
(2017) Intercultural communication. An interdisciplinary approach: When neurons, genes, and evolution joined the discourse. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 236–263). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I.
(2018) Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach. Linguistica Silesiana, 391, 211–235.Google Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P., Littlemore, J., & Houghton, D.
(2019) The role of figurative complexity in the comprehension and appreciation of advertisements. Applied Linguistics, 40(6), 957–991. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz, G.
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(1999) Introducción a la teoría vognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Método Ediciones.Google Scholar
(2020) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 711, 16–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Galera Masegosa, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E.
(2021) “Not soldiers but fire-fighters” – metaphors and Covid-19. Health Communication, 36(1), 50–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) COVID-19: A forest fire rather than a wave? Mètode. Science Studies Journal – Annual Review, 11, 5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., & Demmen, J.
(2018) An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 625–645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A., & Rayson, P.
(2017) The online use of Violence and Journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care, 7(1), 60–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T.
(2010a) Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
(2010b) A Method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Studts, J. L., Ruberg, J. L., McGuffin, S. A., & Roetzer, L. M.
(2010) Decisions to register for the National Marrow Donor Program: rational vs emotional appeals. Bone Marrow Transplantation, 45(3), 422–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szelid, V., & Benczes, R.
(2020) From verbality to visuality: Introduction to the special issue. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 7(1), 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E., & Steen, G. J.
(2013) Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šorm, E., & Steen, G.
(2018) VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor identification. In G. J. Steen (Ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process (pp. 47–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
(1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wicke, P., & Bolognesi, M. M.
(2020) Framing COVID-19: How we conceptualize and discuss the pandemic on Twitter. PloS ONE, 15(9), e0240010–e0240010. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yesil, B.
(2004) ‘Who said this is a man’s war? Propaganda, advertising discourse and the representation of war worker women during the Second World War. Media History, 10(2), 103–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zillmann, Dolf
(1999) Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by the sum of its parts. Media Psychology, 1 (1). 69–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zillmann, D.
(2002) Exemplification theory of media influence. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2nd ed. (pp. 19–41). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B.
(2000) Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar