Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp. 106139
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Baicchi, Annalisa
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 76 ff. Crossref logo
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena
2019. From research to the textbook. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 32:1  pp. 248 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.

References

References

Baicchi, A.
(2009) The AUX-NP requestive construction and its metonymic grounding within the Lexical Constructional Model. Lecture delivered at the International CRAL Conference 2009 . University of La Rioja.
(2012) On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: ets.Google Scholar
(2014) Speech acts as high-level situational cognitive models. In M.E. Schulze-Busacker & V. Fortunati (Eds.), Par les siècles et par les genres (pp. 23–50). Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, 23(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.
(Eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R.
(2009) Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 323–338). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, N.
(2013) Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dik, S.
(1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A., Schneider, G., Taavitsainen, I., & Breustedt, B.
(2008) Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Speech acts in the history of English (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A.
(2011) How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3489–3521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L.
(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
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(2005) Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou, K. Nikiforidou, & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century (pp. 53–76). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L.
(2001) Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Rioja.Google Scholar
(2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 40, 62–93.Google Scholar
(2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, 25, 189–210.Google Scholar
(2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33, 128–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 99–138.Google Scholar
Reddy, M.
(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 248–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google 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 RRG grammars (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Baicchi, A.
(2006) Illocutionary constructions. Linguistic LAUD Agency. Series A. General & Theoretical Papers. Essen, LAUD 2006. Paper no. 668.Google Scholar
(2007) Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2011) Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, 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(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H.
(1996) Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, H.
(2008) Imperatives in concessive clauses: Compatibility between constructions. Constructions, 2, 1–39.Google Scholar
(2012) A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1981) Force dynamics. Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Mental Imagery . University of California at Berkeley.
(1985) Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 67–85.Google Scholar
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. CrossrefGoogle 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/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
(1985) What people say they do with words: Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar