1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Cognitive Modeling

Cognitive Modeling

A linguistic perspective

image of Cognitive Modeling
GBP
Buy:£76.00 + Taxes

This monograph studies cognitive operations on cognitive models across levels and domains of meaning construction. It explores in what way the same set of cognitive operations, either in isolation or in combination, account for meaning representation whether obtained on the basis of inferential activity or through constructional composition. As a consequence, it makes explicit links between constructional and figurative meaning. The pervasiveness of cognitive operations is explored across the levels of meaning construction (argument, implicational, illocutionary, and discourse structure) distinguished by the Lexical Constructional Model. This model is a usage-based approach to language that reconciles insights from functional and cognitive linguistics and offers a unified account of the principles and constraints that regulate both inferential activity and the constructional composition of meaning. This book is of value to scholars with an interest in linguistic evidence of cognitive activity in meaning construction. The contents relate to the fields of Cognitive Grammar, Cognitive Semantics, Construction Grammar, Functional Linguistics, and Inferential Pragmatics.Cognitive Modeling has been awarded the 2015 prize of the Spanish Association for Applied Linguistics (Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada, AESLA) for work by experienced researchers.

References

  1. Anolli, L ., Ciceri, R. , & Infantino, M. G.
    (2000) Irony as a game of implicitness: Acoustic profiles of ironic communication. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 275–311. doi: 10.1023/A:1005100221723
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005100221723 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2002) From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns of ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology, 37(5), 266–276. doi: 10.1080/00207590244000106
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590244000106 [Google Scholar]
  3. Attardo, S.
    (2000) Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 793–826. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00070‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Attardo, S ., Eisterhold, J ., Hay, J. , & Poggi, I.
    (2003) Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260. doi: 10.1515/humr.2003.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bach, K.
    (1994) Conversational implicature. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Baicchi, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus. English Studies in Italy, 23(3), 543–563.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Barbe, K.
    (1995) Irony in context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.34
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.34 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed) (2000a) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2000b) 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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2002) On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk , & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics today (pp. 207–224). Frankfurt & Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Barlow, M. , & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Barnden, J. A.
    (2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Benczes, R ., Barcelona, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (Eds) (2011) Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bergen, B.
    (2012) Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bergh, G.
    (2005) Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: what can Google tell us?ICAME Journal, 29, 25–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Berto, F.
    (2007) How to sell a contradiction. The logic and metaphysics of inconsistency. London: College Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bhatt, R.
    (1999) Actuality Entailments of Ability Modals. In K. Shahin , S. Blake , & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on formal linguistics (pp. 74–87). Palo Alto, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A Constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (2005) From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer , & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp. 129–160). Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2008) Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.5.02boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.02boa [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011) A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Verbal alternations in English (pp. 207–234). London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Boers, F. , & Lindstromberg, S.
    (Eds) (2008) Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Booth, W. C.
    (1975) A Rhetoric of irony. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Boroditsky, L.
    (2000) Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2001) Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 [Google Scholar]
  29. Boroditsky, L ., Fuhrman, O. , & McCormick, K.
    (2011) Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently?Cognition, 118, 123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Brdar, M.
    (2007) Metonymy in grammar. Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Brdar, M. , & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. In G. Radden , K.-M. Köpcke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Brdar-Szabó, R. , & Brdar, M.
    (2005) Scalar models in a cognitive approach to hyperbolic expressions: With a little help from metonymy. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Pragmatics today (pp. 75–94). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes , A. Barcelona , & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd [Google Scholar]
  34. Bryant, G. A.
    (2010) Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 545–566. doi: 10.1080/01638530903531972
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903531972 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2011) Verbal irony in the wild. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(2), 291–309. doi: 10.1075/pc.19.2.06bry
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.2.06bry [Google Scholar]
  36. (2012) Is verbal irony special?Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 673–685. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.364
     https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.364 [Google Scholar]
  37. Bryant, G. A. , & Fox Tree, J. E.
    (2002) Recognizing verbal irony in spontaneous speech. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(2), 99–117. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1702_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1702_2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Burgers, C ., Van Mulken, M. , & Schellens, P. J.
    (2012) Type of evaluation and marking of irony: The role of perceived complexity and comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Butler, C. S.
    (2009a) Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica, 43(1), 1–66. doi: 10.1515/FLIN.2009.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2009b) The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. Butler , & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2013) Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan , & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.10but
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.10but [Google Scholar]
  42. Butler, C. S. , & Taverniers, M.
    (2008) Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics,46(4), 689–956.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Caballero, R.
    (2003) Talking about space: Image metaphor in architectural discourse. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 87–105. doi: 10.1075/arcl.1.05cab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.05cab [Google Scholar]
  44. (2006) Re-viewing space. Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110893892
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110893892 [Google Scholar]
  45. Cadierno, T.
    (2004) Expressing motion events in a second language: a cognitive typological approach. In M. Achard , & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 13–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199857.13
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857.13 [Google Scholar]
  46. Cadierno, T. , & Ruiz, L.
    (2006) Motion events in second language acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 183–216. doi: 10.1075/arcl.4.08cad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.08cad [Google Scholar]
  47. Cappelle, B.
    (2009) The TIME IS SPACE metaphor: Some linguistic evidence that its end is near. In C. Delmas (Ed.), Espace-temps Anglais: Points de vue (pp. 53–62). Paris: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Carston, R.
    (1998) Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston , & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 179–236). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.37
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37 [Google Scholar]
  49. Carston, R. , & Wearing, C.
    (2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: a pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. doi: 10.1515/langcog.2011.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Casasanto, D. , & Boroditsky, L.
    (2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Chen, J.-Y.
    (2007) Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition, 104, 427–436. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.012 [Google Scholar]
  52. Chomsky, N.
    (1964) Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Clark, H. , & Gerrig, R.
    (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. (Reprinted in Gibbs and Colston, 2007, pp. 25–33). doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.121
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  54. Colebrook, C.
    (2002) Irony in the work of philosophy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Colston, H. L.
    (1997) Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23, 25–45. doi: 10.1080/01638539709544980
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544980 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2000) On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics and Cognition, 8, 277–324. doi: 10.1075/pc.8.2.02col
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.8.2.02col [Google Scholar]
  57. (2002) Contrast and assimilation in verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 111–142. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80008‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80008-X [Google Scholar]
  58. Colston, H. L , & Gibbs, R. W.
    (2007) Introduction. A Brief History of Irony. In R. W. Gibbs , & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Colston, H. L. , & Keller, S. B.
    (1998) You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499–513. doi: 10.1023/A:1023229304509
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023229304509 [Google Scholar]
  60. Colston, H. L. , & Lee, S. Y.
    (2004) Gender differences in verbal irony use. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 289–306. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_3 [Google Scholar]
  61. Coslton, H. L. , & O’Brien, J.
    (2000) Contrast and pragmatics in figurative language: Anything understatement can do, irony can do better. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1557–1583. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00110‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00110-1 [Google Scholar]
  62. Cook, V. J.
    (1974) Is explanatory adequacy adequate?Linguistics, 133, 21–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens , T. Berg , R. Dirven , & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  65. (2008) On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 49–58. doi: 10.1515/COG.2008.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
  66. Cruse, A.
    (2004) Lexical facets and metonymy. Ilha do Desterro, 47, 73–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  68. Currie, G.
    (2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination: New essays on pretence, possibility, and fiction (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Deignan, A.
    (2007) “Image” metaphors and connotations in everyday language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 173–192. doi: 10.1075/arcl.5.08dei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.08dei [Google Scholar]
  70. Del Campo Martínez, N.
    (2011) Cognitive modeling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del [Google Scholar]
  71. Del Campo Martínez, N. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2012) A constructionist approach to illocution: the case of orders. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies, 45, 13–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Dews, S ., Kaplan, J. , & Winner, E.
    (1995) Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347–367. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544922
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544922 [Google Scholar]
  73. Dews, S. , & Winner, E.
    (1995) Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 3–19. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1001_2 [Google Scholar]
  74. Diedrichsen, E.
    (2013) From idioms to sentence structures and beyond. The theoretical scope of the concept “Construction.” In B. Nolan , & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 295–330). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145 [Google Scholar]
  75. Dik, S. C.
    (1997a) [ Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (1997b) [ Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)]. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110218374
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  77. Dirven, R.
    (2005) Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 17–68). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Dirven, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2010) Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska , M. Choiński , & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. (2014) Cognitive Linguistics three decades later: looking back to look forward. In J. Luchjenbroers , & M. Aldridge-Waddon (Eds.), Conceptual structure and Cognitive Linguistics research. Vol I, grammar, metaphor and blends. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins; vol. in prep.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Dowty, D.
    (2000) ‘The garden swarms with bees’ and the fallacy of ‘argument alternation.’ In Y. Ravi , & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy. Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 111–128). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. (2001) The Semantic Asymmetry of “Argument Alternations” (and Why it Matters). In G. van der Meer , & A. G. ter Meulen (Eds.), Making sense: From lexeme to discourse (pp. 171–186). Groningen: Centre for Language and Cognition.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Dress, M. L ., Kreuz, R. J ., Link, K. E. , & Caucci, G. M.
    (2008) Regional variation in the use of sarcasm. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 71–85. doi: 10.1177/0261927X07309512
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07309512 [Google Scholar]
  83. Dressler, W. U. , & Merlini Barbaresi, L.
    (1994) Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110877052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877052 [Google Scholar]
  84. Eddington, D. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2010) Argument constructions and language processing: evidence from a priming experiment and pedagogical implications. In S. De Knop , F. Boers , & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Edwards, D.
    (2000) Extreme case formulations: softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01 [Google Scholar]
  86. Elleström, L.
    (2002) Divine madness: On interpreting literature, music, and the visual arts ironically. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Evans, N. , & Wilkins, D.
    (2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76 (3), 546–592. doi: 10.2307/417135
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  88. Evans, V.
    (2004) The structure of time. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.12 [Google Scholar]
  89. (2011) Language and cognition: The view from Cognitive Linguistics. In V. Cook , & B. Basseti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 69–108). New York & Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Fauconnier, G.
    (1975a) Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 353–375.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. (1975b) Polarity and the Scale Principle. Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting (pp.188–199). Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  93. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  94. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1996) Blending as a central process in grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  96. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam & New York: North-Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea(Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Fillmore, C. J ., Johnson, C. R. , & Petruck, M. R.
    (2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. doi: 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  101. Fillmore, C. J ., Kay, P. , & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone . Language, 64, 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  102. Forceville, C.
    (2009a) The role of non-verbal metaphor sound and music in multimodal metaphor. In C. Forceville , & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 383–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110215366
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366 [Google Scholar]
  103. (2009b) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In E. Ventola , & A. J. Moya (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Multisemiotic issues (pp. 56–74). London: Palgrave-McMillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Fowler, H. W.
    (1965) A dictionary of modern English usage. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Galera-Masegosa, A.
    (2010a) A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. (2010b) Metaphoric complexes: a Spanish-English contrastive analysis of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 23, 175–194.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. (2012) Constraints on subsumption and amalgamation processes in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of phone and email. Atlantis, 34(2), 167–184.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Galera-Masegosa, A . & Iza, A.
    (2014) Conceptual complexity in metaphorical resemblance operations revisited. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Forthcoming.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Galton, A.
    (2011) Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialisation of time. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 695–703. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  110. Geeraerts, D.
    (2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. (2005) Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 163–189). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Geeraerts, D ., Kristiansen, G. , & Peirsman, Y.
    (2010) Introduction. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In D. Geeraerts , G. Kristiansen , & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 1–22). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226461.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461.1 [Google Scholar]
  113. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. (2000) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 5–27 doi: 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 [Google Scholar]
  115. (2006a) Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our intuitions?Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,4, 135–152. doi: 10.1075/arcl.4.06gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.06gib [Google Scholar]
  116. (2006b) Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  117. (2006c) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  118. (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  119. Gibbs, R. W. , & Colston, H.L.
    (Eds) (2007) Irony in language and thought. A cognitive science reader. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Gibbs, R. , & Izett, C.
    (2005) Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston , & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural factors (pp. 131–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Gibbs, R. W ., Lima, P. , & Francuzo, E.
    (2004) Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1189–1210. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  122. Gibbs, R. W. , & Matlock, T.
    (2008) Metaphor, imagination and simulation: Psycho-linguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016 [Google Scholar]
  123. Gibbs R. W. , & Tendahl, M.
    (2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 21, 379–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00283.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00283.x [Google Scholar]
  124. Giora, R ., Fein, O ., Ganzi, J ., Levi, N. A. , & Sabah, H.
    (2005) On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39(1), 81–100. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3 [Google Scholar]
  125. Giora, R ., Fein, O ., Metuki, N. , & Stern, P.
    (2010) Negation as a metaphor-inducing operator. In L. R. Horn (Ed.), The expression of negation (pp. 225–256). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Givón, T.
    (1985) Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.10giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.10giv [Google Scholar]
  127. (1995) Isomorphisms in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. In R. Simone (Ed.), Iconicity in language (pp. 47–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.110.07giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.110.07giv [Google Scholar]
  128. Glenwright, M. , & Pexman, P. M.
    (2010) Development of children’s ability to distinguish sarcasm and verbal irony. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 429–451. doi: 10.1017/S0305000909009520
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909009520 [Google Scholar]
  129. Glucksberg, S.
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  130. (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00282.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x [Google Scholar]
  131. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  133. (2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Gonzálvez-García, F. , & Butler, C. S.
    (2006) Mapping functional cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. doi: 10.1075/arcl.4.04gon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.04gon [Google Scholar]
  135. Gonzálvez-García, F ., Peña, S. , & Pérez, L.
    (Eds) (2011) Metaphor and Metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1). Reedited in 2013, in Benjamins Current Topics, 56. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  137. Grady, J.
    (1997a) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  138. (1997b) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs , & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  140. Grady, J . & Johnson, C.
    (2002) Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533–553). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Grice, P. H.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole , & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  142. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Gries, S. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  144. Haiman, J.
    (1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56(3), 515–540. doi: 10.2307/414448
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  145. (1985) Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6 [Google Scholar]
  146. (2008) In defence of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 59–66. doi: 10.1515/COG.2008.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  147. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2004) An introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd revised edition. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Halliday, M. A. K. , & Ruqayia, H.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Hampe, B.
    (In cooperation with Grady, J.) (Eds) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Lin­guistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532 [Google Scholar]
  150. Hao, Y. , & Veale, T.
    (2010) An ironic fist in a velvet glove: Creative mis-representation in the construction of ironic similes. Minds and machines, 20(4), 483–488. doi: 10.1007/s11023‑010‑9211‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9211-1 [Google Scholar]
  151. Hengeveld, K. , & Mackenzie, L.
    (2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  152. Herrera, H. , & White, M.
    (Eds) (2012) Metaphor and mills. Figurative language in business and economics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110274585
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274585 [Google Scholar]
  153. Herrero Ruiz, J.
    (2009) Understanding tropes: At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Heyvaert, L.
    (2003) A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Hidalgo, L. , & Kraljevic, B.
    (2011) Multimodal metonymy and metaphor as complex discourse resources for creativity in ICT advertising discourse. In F. Gonzálvez-García , S. Peña , & L. Pérez (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Special issue of theReview of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 153–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Holdcroft, D.
    (1983) Irony as a trope, and irony as discourse. Poetics Today, 4(3), 493–511. doi: 10.2307/1772029
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1772029 [Google Scholar]
  157. Horn, L.
    (1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, distributed by IULC.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. (1984) A new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context (GURT ‘84) (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. (2002) Assertoric Inertia and Scalar Inference. In M. Andronis , E. Deberport , A. Pycha , & K. Yeshimura (Eds.), Proceedings of the panels of the CLS 38, 2 (pp. 58–82). Chicago: CLS.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Ibarretxe Antuñano, I.
    (2009) Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo , E. Lieven , N. Budwig , S. Ervin-Tripp , K. Nakamura , & S. Őzçalişkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403–414). New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  161. Israel, M.
    (1997) The Scalar Model of Polarity Sensitivity. In D. Forget , P. Hirschbühler , F. Martineau , & M.-L. Rivero (Eds.), Negation: Syntax and semantics (pp. 209–229). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. (2001) Minimizers, maximizers, and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics, 18, 297–331. doi: 10.1093/jos/18.4.297
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/18.4.297 [Google Scholar]
  163. (2004) The Pragmatics of Polarity. In L. Horn , & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701–723). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  164. Israel, M..
    (2011) The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511975288
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975288 [Google Scholar]
  165. Jackendoff, R.
    (1975) On belief contexts. Linguistic Inquiry,6, 53–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. Jason, G.
    (1988) Hedging as a Fallacy of Language. Informal Logic, 10(3), 169–175.
     [Google Scholar]
  167. Johansson Falck, M. , & Gibbs, R. W.
    (2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251–272. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  168. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  169. Johnson, C. R.
    (1999) Constructional grounding: The role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Karttunen, L.
    (1971) Implicative Verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358. doi: 10.2307/412084
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412084 [Google Scholar]
  171. Katz, A. N ., Blasko, D. G. , & Kazmerski, V. A.
    (2004) Saying what you don’t mean: social influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 186–189. doi: 10.1111/j.0963‑7214.2004.00304.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00304.x [Google Scholar]
  172. Katz, A.N. , & Pexman, P. M.
    (1997) Interpreting figurative statements: speaker occupation can change metaphor to irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 19–41. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1201_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868 ms1201_3 [Google Scholar]
  173. Kaufer, D. S.
    (1981) Understanding ironic communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(6), 495–510. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90015‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90015-1 [Google Scholar]
  174. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, P.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 75, 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  175. Kemmer, S.
    (1993) The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [Google Scholar]
  176. Kemmerer, D.
    (2005) The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797–806. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.025
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.025 [Google Scholar]
  177. Kilgarriff, A. , & Grefenstette, G.
    (2003) Introduction to the Special Issue on the Web as Corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. doi: 10.1162/089120103322711569
     https://doi.org/10.1162/089120103322711569 [Google Scholar]
  178. Koch, P.
    (1999) Frame and contiguity. On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139–168). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.09koc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc [Google Scholar]
  179. Kövecses, Z.
    (2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  180. (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  181. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  182. (2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  183. (2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones?Review of Cognitive Linguistics,9(1), 11–25. doi: 10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov [Google Scholar]
  184. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Lin­guistics, 9, 37–77. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  185. Kreuz, R. J. , & Caucci, G. M.
    (2009) Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition. Expression of the social mind (pp. 325–348). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  186. Kreuz, R. , & Glucksberg, S.
    (1989) How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 374–386. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.118.4.374
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.4.374 [Google Scholar]
  187. Kreuz, R. J. , & Roberts, R. M.
    (1995) Two Cues for Verbal Irony: Hyperbole and the Ironic Tone of Voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 21–31. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3 [Google Scholar]
  188. Kumon-Nakamura, S. , Glucksberg, S. , & Brown, M.
    (1995) How about another piece of the pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 3–21. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.124.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  189. Lakoff, G.
    (1987a) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  190. Lakoff, George.
    (1987b) Image metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2(3), 219–222. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms0203_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0203_4 [Google Scholar]
  191. Lakoff, G.
    (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics,1(1), 39–74. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  192. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  193. (1996) Sorry, I’m not myself today: the metaphor system for conceptualizing the Self. In G. Fauconnier , & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 91–123). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  194. (2008) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  195. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  196. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  197. Lakoff, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  198. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  199. (1991a) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  200. (1991b) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110857733
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857733 [Google Scholar]
  201. (1995) Cognitive Grammar. In J. Verschueren , J.-O. Östman , & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 105–111). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hop.m.cog2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.cog2 [Google Scholar]
  202. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1­–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  203. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  204. (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. doi: 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  205. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  206. (2009) Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  207. (2011) Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.27.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.04lan [Google Scholar]
  208. Leech, G. N.
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  209. Leggitt, J. , & Gibbs, R. W.
    (2000) Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_1 [Google Scholar]
  210. Lemmens, M.
    (2006) More on objectless transitives and ergativization patterns in English. ConstructionsSV1–6/2006.
     [Google Scholar]
  211. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  212. Levin, B. , & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  213. Levinson, S. C.
    (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA & London, England: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  214. Li, C. N. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1989) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  215. Liebert, W.-A ., Redeker, G. , & Waugh, L.
    (Eds) (1997) Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151 [Google Scholar]
  216. Lucariello, J.
    (1994) Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 129–145. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.123.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  217. Mairal, R. , & Faber, P.
    (2007) Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 137–172. doi: 10.1075/arcl.5.07mai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.07mai [Google Scholar]
  218. Mairal, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler , & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  219. Mann, W. C. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  220. Marzo, D.
    (2011) Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation? The implications of metaphor- and metonymy-based polysemy for transparency in the lexicon. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. (pp. 251–268). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.27.16mar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.16mar [Google Scholar]
  221. McCarthy, M. , & Carter, R.
    (2004) There’s millions of them: hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 149–184. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00116‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4 [Google Scholar]
  222. McEnery, T. , & Wilson, A..
    (2001 ). Corpus Linguistics. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  223. Michaelis, L.
    (2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens , R. Dirven , & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  224. Minsky, M.
    (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  225. Moon, R.
    (2008) Conventionalized as-similes in English: A problem case. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 3–37. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.13.1.03moo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.1.03moo [Google Scholar]
  226. Narayanan, S.
    (2013) To appear in the Proceedings of the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), Edmonton, Canada. Slides from a recent talk available at www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~snarayan/Scales.pdf.
  227. Nemoto, N.
    (2005) Verbal polysemy and Frame Semantics in Construction Grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. In M. Fried , & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions. Back to the roots (pp. 119–136). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.4.08nem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.08nem [Google Scholar]
  228. Niemeier, S.
    (2003) ‘Straight from the heart.’ Metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 195–213). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  229. Norrick, N. R.
    (2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  230. Oakley, T.
    (2007) Image Schemas. In D. Geeraerts , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214–235). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  231. Oakley, T. , & Hougaard, A.
    (Eds) (2008) Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.170
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170 [Google Scholar]
  232. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  233. (2012) Motivation in language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139021463.023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139021463.023 [Google Scholar]
  234. Panther, K.-U. , & Radden, G.
    (2011a) Introduction. Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27 [Google Scholar]
  235. (Eds) (2011b) Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27 [Google Scholar]
  236. Panther, K.-U. , & Thornburg, L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755–769. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  237. (1999) The Potentiality for Actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  238. (2000) The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  239. (Eds) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113 [Google Scholar]
  240. (2012) Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar , I. Raffaelli , & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 159–186). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  241. Paradis, C.
    (2000) Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic approach on grammaticalization. In R. Bermudez-Otero , D. Denison , R. M. Hogg , & C. B. McCully (Eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies (pp. 233–258). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  242. Peña, S.
    (2003) Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  243. (2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  244. Peña, S. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K.-U. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.21pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.21pen [Google Scholar]
  245. Pérez, L.
    (2001) Metaphor-based cluster models and conceptual interaction: the case of ‘time.’ Atlantis, 23(2), 65–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  246. (2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple-source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  247. Pérez, L. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259–284. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80002‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9 [Google Scholar]
  248. (2011) A Lexical Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 99–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  249. Priest, G ., Beall, J. C. , & Armour-Garb, B.
    (Eds) (2004) The law of non-contradiction. New philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199265176.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199265176.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  250. Radden, G.
    (2000) How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 93–108). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  251. (2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal , I. Navarro , & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
     [Google Scholar]
  252. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English Grammar: The simple sentence. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  253. Radden, G. , & Panther, K.-U.
    (2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden , & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  254. Recanati, F.
    (2004a) Embedded implicature. Philosophical perspectives, 17(1): 299–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1520‑8583.2003.00012.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2003.00012.x [Google Scholar]
  255. (2004b) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  256. (2007) Indexicality, context and pretence. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  257. 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: new applications, new challenges (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  258. Rosca, A.
    (2012) Bases for the development of ontological semantics within the conceptual domains of change and possession. Implementations and implications for the lexico-syntactic-cognition interface and the development of intelligent agents. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of La Rioja.
     [Google Scholar]
  259. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. doi: 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  260. (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch , & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  261. (1983) Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In E. K. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory? (pp. 73–86). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  262. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1997a) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis, 19, 281–295.
     [Google Scholar]
  263. (1997b) Some notes on the translation of Spanish -ito/-illo diminutives into English. Pragmalingüística, 3&4, 155–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  264. (1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00006‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X [Google Scholar]
  265. (1999) Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.
     [Google Scholar]
  266. (2000a) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  267. (2000b) El modelo cognitivo idealizado de ‘tamaño’ y la formación de aumentativos y diminutivos en español. In R. Maldonado (Ed.), Estudios cognoscitivos del español (pp. 355–374). Special monograph co-edited by Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada and Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro.
     [Google Scholar]
  268. (2002) From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum. An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 107–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  269. (2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  270. (2008) Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop , & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar. Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  271. (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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  272. (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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  273. (2014a) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore , & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (Forthcoming). London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  274. (2014b) Low-level situational cognitive models within the Lexical Constructional Model and their computational implementation in FunGramKB. In B. Nolan , & C. Periñán (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp. 367–390). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.150.15iba
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.15iba [Google Scholar]
  275. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Baicchi, A.
    (2007) Illocutionary Constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes , & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  276. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Díez, O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven , & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  277. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Galera-Masegosa, A.
    (2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. doi: 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
     https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  278. (2012) Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: metaphoric chains. In B. Eizaga (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp. 157–185). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  279. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Gómez-González, M. A.
    (2014) Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J . Ruiz de Mendoza , & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional Cognitive Space (pp. 295–313). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  280. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2011) Constructional integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  281. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. , & Luzondo, A.
    (2012) Lexical-constructional subsumption in resultative constructions in English. In M. Brdar , I. Raffaelli , & M. Zic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Between universality and variation (pp. 117–136). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  282. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Mairal, R.
    (2007) Levels of semantic representation: where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17, 26–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  283. (2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica. Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaea, 42(2), 355–400.
     [Google Scholar]
  284. (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, UK & Oakville, CT: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  285. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Peña, S.
    (2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  286. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Pérez, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  287. (2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui [Google Scholar]
  288. (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  289. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Santibáñez, F.
    (2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2(15), 293–320.
     [Google Scholar]
  290. Rumelhart, D. E.
    (1975) Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow , & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies on cognitive science (pp. 185–210). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  291. Sadock, J. M. , & Zwicky, A. M.
    (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 155–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  292. Salkoff, M.
    (1983) Bees are swarming in the garden: A systematic synchronic study of productivity. Language, 59, 288–346. doi: 10.2307/413576
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413576 [Google Scholar]
  293. Sanford, A. J. , & Garrod, S. C.
    (1981) Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  294. Schank, R. C. , & Abelson, R.
    (1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  295. Schegloff, E.
    (1987) Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201–218. doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 [Google Scholar]
  296. (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500001019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001019 [Google Scholar]
  297. Schegloff, E ., Jefferson, G. , & Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  298. Schmid, Hans-Jörg.
    2010 Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn , & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–134). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  299. Searle, J.
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  300. (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  301. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G ., Tomer, R. , & Aharon-Peretz, J.
    (2005) The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19(3), 288–300. doi: 10.1037/0894‑4105.19.3.288
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.288 [Google Scholar]
  302. Slobin, D.
    (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist , & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative. Vol. 2 (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  303. Slobin, D. I. , & Hoiting, N.
    (1994) Reference to movement in spoken and sign languages: Typological consideration. Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 487–503).
     [Google Scholar]
  304. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D.
    (1981) Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  305. (1985/1986) Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, LXXXVI, 153–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  306. (1993) Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  307. (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  308. (1998) Irony and relevance. A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R. Carston , & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 283–93). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.37.16spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.16spe [Google Scholar]
  309. Steen, G.J.
    (2005) Basic discourse acts: Towards a psychological theory of discourse segmentation. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 283–312). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  310. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2010) Empirical cognitive semantics: some thoughts. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 357–380). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  311. Stockwell, P.
    (1999) The Inflexibility of Invariance. Language and Literature, 8(2), 125–42. doi: 10.1177/096394709900800202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709900800202 [Google Scholar]
  312. Swearingen, C. J.
    (1991) Rhetoric and irony: Western literacy and western lies. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  313. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From Etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  314. Talmy, L.
    (1978) Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Syntax (pp. 625–649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  315. (1988a) The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.50.08tal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.08tal [Google Scholar]
  316. (1988b) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  317. (1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Working Papers in Linguistics, 480–519.
     [Google Scholar]
  318. (2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  319. (2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  320. Taylor, J. R.
    (1995) Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2nd ed.
     [Google Scholar]
  321. Tendahl, M.
    (2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230244313
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244313 [Google Scholar]
  322. Tendahl, M. , & Gibbs. R.W.
    (2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  323. Tummers, J ., Heylen, K. , & Geeraerts, D.
    (2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics. A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225 [Google Scholar]
  324. Turner, M.
    (1991) Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  325. (1998) Figure. In C. Cacciari , R. Gibbs, Jr ., A. Katz , & M. Turner (Eds.), Figurative language and thought (pp. 44–87). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  326. Urios-Aparisi, E.
    (2009) Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: Four case studies. In C. Forceville , & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 95–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110215366
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366 [Google Scholar]
  327. Van Hoek, K.
    (Ed) (1999)  Discourse studies in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference . Amsterdam, July 1997. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  328. Van Valin, R. D., Jr
    (2005) Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  329. Van Valin, R. D. Jr ., & LaPolla, R.
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  330. Veale, T.
    (2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  331. Veale, T. , & Hao, Y.
    (2010) Detecting Ironic Intent in Creative Comparisons. In H. Coelho , R. Studer , & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), ECAI 2010. 19th European Conference on artificial intelligence. Proceedings. Volume 215 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (pp. 765–770). IOS Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  332. Vendler, Z.
    (1957) Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160. doi: 10.2307/2182371
     https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2182371 [Google Scholar]
  333. Viberg, Å.
    (1984) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  334. Wasserman, P. , & Schober, M. F.
    (2006) Variability in judgements of spoken irony. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 43.
     [Google Scholar]
  335. Waugh, L.
    (1994) Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(1), 55–70. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90056‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90056-6 [Google Scholar]
  336. Waugh, L. , & Newfield, M.
    (1995) Iconicity in the lexicon and its relevance for a theory of morphology. In M. E. Landsberg (Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension (pp. 189–222). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110882926.189
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882926.189 [Google Scholar]
  337. Wilson, D.
    (2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence?Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  338. Wilson D.
    (2009) Irony and metarepresentation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 183–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  339. Wilson, D.
    (2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 40–56. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  340. Wilson, D. , & Carston, R.
    (2008) Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance theoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3 (2007), 1–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  341. Wilson, D. , & Sperber, D.
    (2004) Relevance theory. In L. Horn , & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  342. (2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson , & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and Relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
  343. Zlatev, J. , & Yangklang, P.
    (2004) A third way to travel. The place of Thai in motion-event typology. In S. Strömqvist , & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 159–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027270009
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270009
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270009
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270009
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error