Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F.
(2014) Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colston, H. L., & O’Brien, J.
(2000) Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 321, 1557–1583. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1998) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L.
(1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, distributed by IUCL.Google Scholar
Israel, M.
(2011) The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, 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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(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 am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Iza Erviti, Aneider
2017. An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:1  pp. 210 ff. Crossref logo
Iza Erviti, Aneider
2021.  In Discourse Constructions in English [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, ],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Iza Erviti, Aneider
2021.  In Discourse Constructions in English [Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, ],  pp. 7 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.