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. 199224
References

References

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. 7–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona, & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues, 27–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
(2015) Bibliography of metaphor and metonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J.
(2014) Actual and non-actual motion: why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E.
(2009) Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. In Kwon, I., H. Pritchette, & J. Spence (Eds.), Thirty-fifth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) (pp. 49–59). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
(2012) The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 34, 728–745. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, N.
(2006) Body part terms in Jahai. Language Sciences, 28(2–3), 162–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H., & McGregor, W.
(1996) The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1979) On the transitivity of the part–whole relation. Journal of Linguistics, 15, 29–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) The Lexicon. In M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/.
Dermot, M.
(2005) Edmund Husserl: founder of phenomenology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Devylder, S.
(2016) The PART–WHOLE schema we live through: a cognitive linguistic analysis of part–whole expressions of the Self. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from theses​.fr. (Accession No. s73829).
(2017) Cutting and breaking the embodied self. CogniTextes, 15. Retrieved from http://​cognitextes​.revues​.org.Google Scholar
(2018) Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 313–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Devylder, S., Bracks, C., Shimotori, M. & Siahaan, P.
(2019) Carving the Body at Its Joints: Crossing Boundaries between the Language and Cognition of Body Categorization. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Levshina, N., & Klavan, J.
(2016) Cognitive linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 447–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F.
(2011) Embodiment, ownership and disownership. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(1), 82–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F., Majid, A., Jola, C., & Haggard, P.
(2009) Segmenting the body into parts: evidence from biases in tactile perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(3), 500–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R.
(2002) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. In Dirven, R., & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison: Metonymy as a prototypical category and contrast (pp. 75–111). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dodge, E. K., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M.
(Eds.) 2013The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://​wals​.info, Accessed on 2017-05-10.)Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Majid, A., & Van Staden, M.
(2006) Cross-linguistic categorization of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences, 28(2), 137–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaby, A. R.
(2006) The Thaayorre ‘true man’: Lexicon of the human body in an Australian language. Language Sciences, 28, 201–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
(2005) (Ed.). From perception to meaning. Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E.
(1970a) The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. An introduction to phenomenological philosophy (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press (original work published 1954).Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1991) Parts and boundaries. In B. Levin, & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp. 9–45). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M.
(2005) Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 285–312). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z.
(2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Boston: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.) Metonymy in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L.
(1914) L’expression de la possession dans les langues mélanésiennes. Mémoire de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 19(2), 96–104.Google Scholar
Majid, A.
(2010) Words for parts of the body. In B. C. Malt, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 58–71). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., & Staden, M.
(2015) Can nomenclature for the body be explained by embodiment theories? Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 570–594. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Enfield, N. J., & van Staden, M.
(2006) Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorization. Special issue of Language Sciences, 28, 137–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P.
(1976) Language and perception. Harvard: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I.
(2018) Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic systems approach augmented with motion-capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(1981) Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science IV (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L. L., & Barcelona, A.
(Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (Vol. 25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövesces, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thoughts (pp. 17–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, T.
(2005) Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
1998The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (Topics in English Linguistics 4) (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seto, K.
(1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sokolowski, R.
(2000) Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sonesson, G.
(1989) Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the visual analysis of the visual world. Chartwell-Bratt Ltd.Google Scholar
(1993) The multiple bodies of man. Project for a semiotics of the body . Degrés, Bryssel, XXI: 74, été 1993: d1–d42.
(2010) Semiosis and the elusive final interpretant of understanding. Semiotica, 179(1–4), 145–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Aspects of “physiognomic depiction” in pictures: From macchia to microgenesis. Culture Psychology, 19(4), 533–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Lifeworlds: The cognitive semiotics of culture. In D. Dunér, & G. Sonesson (Eds.), Human lifeworlds: The Cognitive semiotics of cultural evolution (pp. 23–62). Berlin: Peter Lang Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Stampoulidis, G., & Bolognesi, M.
under review). Bringing metaphors back to the streets: A corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art.
Sullivan, K. S.
(2007) Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 375–385). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000a) The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 37–47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Staden, M., & Majid, A.
(2006) Body colouring task. Language Sciences, 28(2), 158–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vieu, L., and Aurnague, M.
(2007) Part-of relations, functionality and dependence. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp. 307–336). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winston, M., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D.
(1987) A taxonomy of part–whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W.
(2016) Variation in metonymy: Cross-linguistic, historical and lectal perspectives (Vol. 59). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(2005) What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 313–342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Turning back to experience in Cognitive Linguistics via phenomenology. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 559–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar