Conceptual metaphor in the complex dynamics of illocutionary meaning

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

Price: £15.00+Taxes
Add to favourites

The full text of this article is not currently available.

Data & Media loading...


Full text loading...


Baicchi, A
(2009) The AUX-NP requestive construction and its metonymic grounding within the Lexical Constructional Model. Lecture delivered at the International CRAL Conference 2009 . University of La Rioja.
(2012) On acting and thinking: Studies bridging between speech acts and cognition. Pisa: ets.
(2014) Speech acts as high-level situational cognitive models. In M.E. Schulze-Busacker & V. Fortunati (Eds.), Par les siècles et par les genres (pp.23–50). Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Baicchi, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2010) The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions. Textus, 23(3), 543–563.
Blum-Kulka, S. , House, J. , & Kasper, G
(Eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Brdar-Szabó, R
(2009) Metonymy in indirect directives: Stand-alone conditionals in English, German, Hungarian and Croatian. In K.-U. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 323–338). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.19brd
Del Campo Martínez, N
(2013) Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
Dik, S
(1997) The Theory of Functional Grammar: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110218374
Givón, T
(1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1017/s0022226700010434
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K
(1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.
Johnson, M
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jucker, A. , Schneider, G. , Taavitsainen, I. , & Breustedt, B
(2008) Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Speech acts in the history of English (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.176.15juc
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
Leech, G
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Mairal Usón, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler & J. Martin Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
Mauri, C. , & Sansò, A
(2011) How directive constructions emerge: grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3489–3521. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001
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
(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.4.19pan
Panther, K.-U. , Thornburg, L
(2003) Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 127–147). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.10pan
Panther, K.-U. , & Thornburg, L
(2005) Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: a cognitive-linguistic approach. In S. Marmaridou , K. Nikiforidou , & E. Antonopoulou (Eds.), Reviewing linguistic thought: Converging trends for the 21st century (pp. 53–76). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110920826.53
Pérez-Hernández, L
(2001) Illocution and cognition: A constructional approach. Logroño: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Rioja.
(2009) Análisis léxico-construccional de verbos de habla. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 40, 62–93.
(2012) Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA, 25, 189–210.
(2013) Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33, 128–149. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
Pérez-Hernández, L. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259–284. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80002‑9
(2011) A lexical-constructional model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 99–138.
Reddy, M
(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 248–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosch, E. , & Mervis, C
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behaviour. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
(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 RRG grammars (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Baicchi, A
(2006) Illocutionary constructions. Linguistic LAUD Agency. Series A. General & Theoretical Papers. Essen, LAUD 2006. Paper no. 668.
(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.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Gonzálvez-García, F
(2011) Constructional Integration in the Lexical Constructional Model. British and American Studies, 17, 75–95.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Mairal Usón, R
(2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.
Searle, J
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
Spencer-Oatey, H
(1996) Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00047‑X
Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stefanowitsch, A
(2003) A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.113.09ste
Takahashi, H
(2008) Imperatives in concessive clauses: Compatibility between constructions. Constructions, 2, 1–39.
(2012) A cognitive linguistic analysis of the English imperative: With special reference to Japanese imperatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.35
Talmy, L
(1981) Force dynamics. Paper presented at theConference on Language and Mental Imagery . University of California at Berkeley.
(1985) Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. InGeorgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 67–85.
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
Thornburg, L. , & Panther, K.-U
(1997) Speech act metonymies. In W.A. Liebert , G. Redeker , & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
Verschueren, J
(1985) What people say they do with words: Prolegomena to an empirical-conceptual approach to linguistic action. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address