Chapter published in:
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 109134
References

References

Austin, J. L.
1962How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A.
2012On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
2009Motivation of construction meaning and form: The role of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Human Cognitive Processing 25) (363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
(Eds.) 2011Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (Human Cognitive Processing 28). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K.
2011Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Translation of: Bühler, K. (1981 [1934]) Sprachtheorie. Jena/Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
1990A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (Or: A taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics, 7, 245–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M.
2008– The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words 1990–2012 Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/.
2013Corpus of global web-based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/glowbe/.
Evans, N.
2007Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2014Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
1980The framework of language (Michigan Studies in the Humanities 1). University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C.
1970Fact. In M. Bierwisch, & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics, (143–173). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail
2013From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
2008Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
2009Grammatische versus konzeptuelle Kongruenz. Oder: Wann siegt das natürliche Geschlecht? In R. Brdar-Szabó, E. Komlósi, & A. Péteri (Eds.), An der Grenze zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik (Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft International 3) (67–86). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Köpcke, K.-M.
2008A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 83–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
1998A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999The POTENTIALITY FOR ACTUALITY metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. -U, & Thornburg, L. L.
2007Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
2009From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames, 1: 56–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Emotion and desire in independent complement clauses: A case study from German. In M. Brdar, M. Žic Fuchs, & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Converging and diverging tendencies in cognitive linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 32) (87–114). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Linda L. Thornburg
2014Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27, 168–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
2017 Exploiting wh-questions for expressive purposes. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (Human Cognitive Processes). (17–40). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In A. Barcelona, O. Blanco-Carrrion, & R. Pannain Eds. The ubiquity of conceptual metonymy: From morpheme to discourse Human Cognitive Processing Amsterdam & Philadelphia John Benjamins
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
2008Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the lexical constructional model. Folia Linguistica, 42, 355–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A.
2007Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 1) (95–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton der Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Boas, C., & Kay. P.
2012Introducing Sign-based Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (1–29). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1969Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1976A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
2003A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (105–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
1997Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (205–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 18 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 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.