Cover not available
Article published In:
Expressing and Describing Surprise
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 479–506

“Cognitive Linguistics is fun”

An interview with Günter Radden

Published online: 31 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.09ben
References (63)
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language: The loaded weapon. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar Szabó, R. (2014). In search of motivation in language: An interview with Klaus-Uwe Panther. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 223–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Berg, T., Dirven, R., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2003). Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy in language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G. (2010). The new linguistic relativism in the NY Times. [URL]. Last accessed: April 2015.
Dirven, R., & Geiger, R.A. (Eds.). (1989). A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Hünig, W., Kühlwein, W., Radden, G., & Strauß, J. (1976). Die Leistung der Linguistik für den Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Radden, G. (1977). Semantische Syntax des Englischen. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
. (Eds.). (1981). Kasusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik. Trier: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
. (Eds.). (1987a). Issues in the theory of Universal Grammar. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. (Eds.). (1987b). Concepts of case. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (1991). The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gomila, A. (2015). Language and thought: The neo-Whorfian hypothesis. In J.D. Wight (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 293–299). 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logo
Górska, E., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (2006). Metaphor–metonymy collage. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J.O.C. (2010). You say up, I say yesterday. Stanford Magazine, May/June. [URL].Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihr Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Dümmlers.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronasser, H. (1968). Handbuch der Semasiologie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Linguistic manifestation of space-time (dis)analogy. In L. Filipović & K.M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures (pp. 191–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. (2011). The conceptual motivation of aspect. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 133–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemeier, S. (2008). The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 309–327). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (1999). Nominalizations, metonymy and lexicographic practice. In L. de Stadler & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 141–163). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N.R. (1981). Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 369–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (1989a). Semantic roles. In R. Dirven & R.A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction (pp. 421–272). Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
. (1989b). Figurative use of prepositions. In R. Dirven & R.A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction (pp. 551–576). Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
. (2004a). The metonymic folk model of language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & A. Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Imagery in language: Festschrift in honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker (pp. 543–565). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. (2004b). The metaphor time as space across languages. In N. Baumarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz, & J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen: Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60 (pp. 225–238). Geburtstag. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.Google Scholar
. (2005).Accessing generic referents by metonymy. In A.J. Schuth, K. Horner, & J. J. Weber (Eds.), Life in language: Studies in honour of Wolfgang Kühlwein (pp. 121–133). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
. (2006a). Where time meets space. In R. Benczes & S. Csábi (Eds.), The metaphors of sixty: Papers presented on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 210–226). Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
. (2006b). The metaphor time as space across languages. In E. Górska & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (pp. 99–120). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). Interaction of modality and negation. In W. Chłopicki, A. Pawelec, & A. Pokojska (Eds.), Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska (pp. 224–254). Krakow: Tertium.Google Scholar
. (2009a). Affirmative and negated modality. In M.A. Olivares & E. Llácer (Eds.), Nuevas perspectivas en Lingüistica Cognitiva/New perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 169–192). Valencia: Universitat de València.Google Scholar
. (2009b). Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 199–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Spatial time in the West and the East. In M. Brdar, M. Omazic, V. Pavičić Takač, T. Gradečak-Erdeljić, & G. Buljan (Eds.), Space and time in language (pp. 1–40). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. (2014). Making sense of negated modals in English, with a glimpse at other Germanic languages. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 471–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2002). Perspectives on prepositions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (1999). The cognitive basis of language: Language and thought. In R. Dirven & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1999). Putting concepts together: Syntax. In R. Dirven & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T., & Siemund, P. (Eds.). (2007). Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and lhought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B.K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Matthis, E. (2002). Why similar to but different from? In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 231–255). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2004a). Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2004b). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2011). Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Seto, K. (2003). Metonymic construals of shopping requests in have- and be-languages. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 223–239). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ullman, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Whorf, B.L. (1939). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In L. Spier (Ed.), Language, culture, and personality (pp. 75–93). Menasha, WI: Sapir Memorial Fund.Google Scholar
Zerubavel, A. (1991). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Denroche, Charles
2019. Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation. Metaphor and the Social World 9:2 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Ma, Chenting & Yi-na Wang
2019. Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Alicia Galera Masegosa,Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2014. Pp. x + 250.. Journal of Linguistics 55:2 ► pp. 462 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.