Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 14:2 (2016) ► pp.474497
Barcelona, A
(2000) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E
(2008) Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, H.C
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2011) Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271–1303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C
(2001) The need for the resultative network. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 261, 41–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) The English change network: Forcing changes into schemas. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) The cognitive basis of adjectival and adverbial resultative constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C
(2011) Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Faber, P., & Mairal, R
(1999) Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(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
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1967) Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 31, 199–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrero, J
(2009) Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Levin, B
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) English object alternations: A unified account. Unpublished manuscript. 
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport, M
(1990) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical-semantic exploration. Cognition, 411, 123–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constraints on the complexity of verb meaning and VP structure. In H.M. Gaertner, R. Eckardt, R. Musan, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Berlin: ZAS. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from [URL].Google Scholar
Luzondo, A
(2011) Construcciones resultativas del inglés en el Modelo Léxico Construccional: Implicaciones para la modelación de una base de conocimiento léxico conceptual. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of La Rioja.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L
(2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuykens, R. Dirven, & J.R. Taylor. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. 333–359). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 215–232). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peña, M.S
(2009) Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences, 31(6), 740–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Expresiones resultativas con la frase preposicional to death: Un análisis desde el punto de vista del Modelo Léxico Construccional. In J.L. Cifuentes, A. Gómez, A. Lilio, J. Mateo, & E. Yus (Eds.), Los caminos de la lengua: Estudios en homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó (pp. 797–811). Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
(2016) Cognitive mechanisms underlying fake reflexive resultatives. Australian Journal of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña, M.S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
forthcoming). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.) Studies in figurative language Amsterdam John Benjamins
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & 
G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, M., & Levin, B
(2010) Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A
(2003) WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(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 grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Mapping concepts: Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Galera, A
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Luzondo, A
(2016) Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 32–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, 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
(2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical-constructional model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Ovejas Ramírez, Carla
2021. Hyperbolic markers in modeling hyperbole: a scenario-based account. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 85  pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2022. Physical and communicative force in Caused-Motion constructions. In Figurative Thought and Language in Action [Figurative Thought and Language, 16],  pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3  pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 september 2023. 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.