Chapter published in:
Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi, Mario Brdar and Kristina Š. Despot
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 8] 2019
► pp. 175198
References

References

Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B.
(2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denroche, C.
(2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fraser, B.
(1975) Hedged performatives. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) (pp. 44–68). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 33–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U.
(2015) Metonymic relationships among actuality, modality, evaluation, and emotion. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp. 129–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2016) How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 12(2), 177–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Köpcke, K.-M.
(2008) A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 83–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
(1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther, & L. L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 133) (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (Human Cognitive Processing 4) (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Taylot, & J. Littllemore (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 7, 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U.
1997Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar