In search of motivation in language
An interview with Klaus-Uwe Panther
Mario Brdar | Josip juraj Strossmayer University, Osijek
References (34)
Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 211, 1-34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Culicover, P. W., & R. Jackendoff (2005).
Simpler Syntax
. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. (1984).
Espaces mentaux: Aspects de la construction du sens dans les langues naturelles
. Paris: Editions de Minuit.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002).
The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities
. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2011). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subject-transitive construction.
Linguistics
, 491, 1305–1358. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 11, 323–340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grady, J. (1997).
Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes
. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 91, 37–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. (1987).
Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind
. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999).
Philosophy in the flesh
. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landau, I. (2013).
Control in Generative Grammar: A research companion
. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. (2008).
Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction
. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 151, 1–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. (1994).
Kontrollphänomene im Englischen und Deutschen aus semantisch-pragmatischer Perspektive
. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U. (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
, 131, 685–711. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation.
Journal of Pragmatics
, 30(6), 755–769. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2012). Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb-particle constructions.
Language Value
, 4(1), 63–83. Available on-line at: [URL]. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (Eds.) (2003).
How universal are conceptual metonymies?: A cross-language comparison. Special issue. Jezikoslovlje
, 4(1). ([URL], or: [URL]).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2004).
Studies in linguistic motivation
. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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
, 421, 355–400. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. (2000).
Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems
. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
Szeverényi, Sándor
2017.
Proceedings of the 4th Mikola Conference - 14-15, November 2014 [
Proceedings of the 4th Mikola Conference - 14-15, November 2014, 51],
► pp. 107 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.