Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:1 (2014) ► pp. 223242
References

References

Baicchi, A.
(2011) Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure: The caused-motion construction from the perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.. (
2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics , 21, 1-34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M.. (
2009) Metonymies we live without. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & 
A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 259–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & R. Jackendoff (
2005)  Simpler Syntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.. (
1984)  Espaces mentaux: Aspects de la construction du sens dans les langues naturelles . Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.. (
1999) Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 77–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002)  The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F.. (
2011) Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subject-transitive construction. Linguistics , 49, 1305–1358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A.. (Eds.). (
2013). Variation and change in the encoding of motion events . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref
Goossens, L.. (
1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 323–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.. (
1997)  Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes . Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.. (
1986)  Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of contexts . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.. (
1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics , 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.. (
1987)  Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.. (
1999)  Philosophy in the flesh . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landau, I.. (
2013)  Control in Generative Grammar: A research companion . Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.. (
2008)  Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B.. (
2009) Towards a comprehensive Construction Grammar account of control: A case study of Swedish infinitives. Constructions and Frames , 1, 153–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.. (
2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics , 15, 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.. (
1994)  Kontrollphänomene im Englischen und Deutschen aus semantisch-pragmatischer Perspektive . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2008) Relating participants across asymmetric events: Conceptual constraints on obligatory control. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Asymmetric events (pp. 209–225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014). Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive morphology and syntax. Journal of Foreign Languages , 37, 2–20.
Panther, K.-U., & Köpcke, K.-M.. (
1989) On correlations between word-order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics , 13, 685–711. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.. (
Eds.) (1999)  Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eds.) (2011)  Motivation in grammar and the lexicon . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.. (
1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics , 30(6), 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999) Coercion and metonymy: The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language (pp. 37–52). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012). Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb-particle constructions. Language Value , 4(1), 63–83. Available on-line at: http://​
www​.e​-revistes​.uji​.es​/languagevalue. 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: John 
Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U.. (Eds.). (
2004)  Studies in linguistic motivation . Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R.. (
2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica , 42, 355–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.. (
2000)  Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems . Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.-U.. (
1997) Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Benczes, Réka
2015. “Cognitive Linguistics is fun”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2  pp. 479 ff. Crossref logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018.  In Conceptual Metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60],  pp. 121 ff. Crossref logo
Szeverényi, Sándor
2017.  In Proceedings of the 4th Mikola Conference - 14-15, November 2014 [Proceedings of the 4th Mikola Conference - 14-15, November 2014, 51],  pp. 107 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 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.