1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Figuring out Figuration

Figuring out Figuration

A cognitive linguistic account

image of Figuring out Figuration
USD
Buy:$149.00 + Taxes

This book combines explanatory breadth with analytical delicacy. It offers a comprehensive study of a broad array of traditional figures of speech by systematizing linguistic evidence of the cognitive processes underlying them. Such processes are explicitly linked to different communicative consequences, thus bringing together pragmatics and cognition. This type of study has allowed the authors to provide new definitions for all the figures while making their dependency relations fully explicit. For example, hypallage, antonomasia, anthimeria, and merism are studied as variants of metonymy, and analogy, paragon, and allegory as variants of metaphor. An important feature of the book is its special emphasis on the combinations of figures of speech into conceptually more complex configurations. Finally, the book accounts for the principles that regulate the felicity of figurative expressions. The result is a broad integrative framework for the analysis of figurative language grounded in the relationship between pragmatics and cognition.

References

  1. Al-Hindawi, F. H. H. , & Kadhim, B. J.
    (2017) A pragmatic study of irony in political electoral speeches. In F. H. H. Al-Hindawi , & W. R. Al-Juwaid (Eds.), Pragmatic analysis of political data (pp.260–309). Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alba-Juez, L. , & Attardo, S.
    (2014) The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In G. Thomson , & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp.93–116). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.05alb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.05alb [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambridge, B. , & Rowland, C. F.
    (2013) Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition. WIREs Cogn Sci, 4 (2),149–168. 10.1002/wcs.1215
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1215 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, J. R.
    (2010) Cognitive Psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ariel, M.
    (2002) The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (4), 361–402. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00043‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00043-1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Athanasiadou, A.
    (Ed.) (2017) Studies in figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56 [Google Scholar]
  7. Athanasiadou, A. , & Colston, H. L.
    (Eds.) (2017) Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Attardo, S.
    (2000a) Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (6), 793–826. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00070‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2000b) Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask. International Journal of Language and Communication, 12 (1), 3–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Attardo, S. , Eisterhold, J. , Hay, J. , & Poggi, I.
    (2003) Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humour, 16 (2), 243–260. 10.1515/humr.2003.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2003) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven , & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207–278). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In C. Alm-Arvius , N. Johannesson , & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp.3–42). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) The motivation of construction meaning and form. The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.22bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.22bar [Google Scholar]
  16. Barcelona, A.
    (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona , R. Benczes , & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  17. Barnden, J. A.
    (2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (1), 1–34. 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015) Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (1), 41–62. 10.1080/10926488.2015.980692
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980692 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2016) Metaphor and simile: Categorizing and comparing categorization and comparison. In E. Gola , & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and communication (pp.25–46). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.5.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.5.02bar [Google Scholar]
  20. (2017a) A hyperbole-based account of the paradoxical usage of “literally”. In A. Wallington , A. Foltz , & J. Ryan (Eds.), Selected Papers from UK CLA Meetings, Vol. 4 (pp.111–130).
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2017b) Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou , & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.145–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1.08bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.08bar [Google Scholar]
  22. (2018a, October23–26). Uniting irony, metaphor and hyperbole in a pretence-based, affect-centred framework [Conference presentation]. 4th International Conference on Figurative Thought and Language, Braga, Portugal.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2018b) Broadly reflexive relationships, a special type of hyperbole, and implications for metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 33 (3), 218–234. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1481256
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481256 [Google Scholar]
  24. Barsalou, L.
    (2014) Cognitive Psychology. An overview for cognitive scientists. New York: Psychology Press (originally published in 1992 by Lawrence Erlbaum). 10.4324/9781315807485
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807485 [Google Scholar]
  25. Beardsley, M.
    (1962) The metaphorical twist. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 22 (3), 293–307. 10.2307/2104415
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2104415 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1976) Metaphor and falsity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35 (2), 218–222. 10.2307/430379
     https://doi.org/10.2307/430379 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bechtel, W.
    (2008) Mechanisms in Cognitive Psychology: What are the operations?Philosophy of Science, 75 (5), 983–994. 10.1086/594540
     https://doi.org/10.1086/594540 [Google Scholar]
  28. Benczes, R. , Barcelona, A. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (Eds.) (2011) Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  29. Benson, T. W. , & Prosser, M. M.
    (1972) Readings in classical rhetoric. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Bergen, B. , & Binsted, K.
    (2003) The Cognitive Linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard , & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp.79–92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Bergen, B. K.
    (2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Bhaya, R.
    (1985) Telling lies: Some literary and other violations of Grice’s maxim of quality. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 14 , 53–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    (2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Black, M.
    (1962) Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501741326
     https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501741326 [Google Scholar]
  35. Black, M.
    (1979) More on metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.19–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Blakemore, D.
    (1992) Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Blanco-Carrión, O. , Barcelona, A. , & Pannain, R.
    (Eds.) (2018) Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60 [Google Scholar]
  38. Blank, G.
    (1988) Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3 (3), 21–36. 10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Boas, H. C.
    (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]
  40. Booth, W. C.
    (1974) A rhetoric of irony. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Boroditsky, L.
    (2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75 (1), 1–28. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Bowdle, B. , & Gentner, D.
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112 (1), 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  43. Brandt, P. A.
    (2005) Mental spaces and cognitive semantics: A critical comment. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 , 1578–1594. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  44. Brdar, M.
    (2004) How pure is the pure hyperbole? The role of metonymic mappings in the construction of some hyperbolic effects. In D. Kučanda , M. Brdar , & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th birthday (pp.373–385). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2017) Metonymy and word formation. Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Brdar, M. , & Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2007) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden , K-M. Köpcke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.125–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.09brd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.09brd [Google Scholar]
  47. Brdar-Szabó, R. , & Brdar, M.
    (2010) “Mummy, I love you like a thousand ladybirds”: Reflections on the emergence of hyperbolic effects and the truth of hyperboles. In A. Burkhardt , & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (pp.383–427). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110230215.383
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110230215.383 [Google Scholar]
  48. Bromiley, G. W.
    (Ed.) (1979) The international standard Bible encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (online access athttps://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/)
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  50. Brown, K. , & Miller, J. E.
    (2013) The Cambridge dictionary of linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139049412
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139049412 [Google Scholar]
  51. Bryant, G.
    (2010) Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47 (7), 545–566. 10.1080/01638530903531972
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903531972 [Google Scholar]
  52. Burgers, C. , Brugman, B. C. , Renardel de Lavalette, K. Y. , & Steen, G. J.
    (2016) HIP: A method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 31 (3), 163–178. 10.1080/10926488.2016.1187041
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1187041 [Google Scholar]
  53. Burgers, C. , Van Mulken, M. , & Schellens, P. J.
    (2011) Finding irony: An introduction of the verbal irony procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 186–205. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583194
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583194 [Google Scholar]
  54. Burkhardt, A.
    (2010) Between poetry and economy. Metonymy as a semantic principle. In A. Burkhardt , & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s). The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (pp.245–270). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110230215.243
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110230215.243 [Google Scholar]
  55. Bussmann, H.
    (1996) Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Routledge (Translated fromLexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart 1990).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  57. Cann, R.
    (2011) Sense relations. In C. Maienborn , K. Von Heusinger , & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 1. Handbook of linguistics and communication science (pp.456–478). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226614.456
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.456 [Google Scholar]
  58. Cano-Mora, L.
    (2003–2004) At the risk of exaggerating: How do listeners react to hyperbole?Anglogermanica Online, 2 (online access atwww.uv.es/anglogermanica/2003-2004/Cano.htm)
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2009) All or nothing: A semantic analysis of hyperbole. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 4 (1), 25–35. 10.4995/rlyla.2009.731
     https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2009.731 [Google Scholar]
  60. Caplan, D. , Waters, G. , Kennedy, D. , Alpert, N. , Makris, N. , DeDe, G. , Michaud, J. , & Reddy, A.
    (2007) A study of syntactic processing in aphasia II: Neurological aspects. Brain and Language, 101 (2), 151–177. 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.226
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.226 [Google Scholar]
  61. Carston, R.
    (2002) Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2010) Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria , & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Essays on Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp.217–285). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230292352_14
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_14 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2016) Contextual adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (2017) Relevance theory and metaphor. In E. Semino , & Z. Demjén (Eds.), Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp.42–55). Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Carston, R. , & Wearing, C.
    (2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3 (2), 283–312. 10.1515/langcog.2011.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2015) Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79 , 79–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  67. Casasanto, D. , & Boroditsky, L.
    (2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106 , 579–593. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  68. Chettih, S. , Durgin, F. H. , & Grodner, D. J.
    (2012) Mixing metaphors in the cerebral hemispheres: What happens when careers collide?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38 (2), 295–311. 10.1037/a0025862
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025862 [Google Scholar]
  69. Chiappe, D. , & Kennedy, J.
    (2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes?Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29 (4), 371–398. 10.1023/A:1005103211670
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005103211670 [Google Scholar]
  70. Chilton, P.
    (2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  71. Cienki, A.
    (1998) Straight: An image schema and its transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 , 107–149. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2007) Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.170–187). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Citron, F. M. M. , & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2014) Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26 (11), 2585–2595. 10.1162/jocn_a_00654
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654 [Google Scholar]
  74. Claridge, C.
    (2011) Hyperbole in English. A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Clark, H. H.
    (1977) Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird , & P. C. Waston (Eds.), Thinking and reading in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (1991) Words and their possibilities in the world. In G. Lockhead , & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), The perception of structure. Essays in honor of Wendell Garner (pp.263–277). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10101‑016
     https://doi.org/10.1037/10101-016 [Google Scholar]
  77. (1996) Psychology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Clark, H. H. , & Gerrig, R. J.
    (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1 , 121–126. 10.1037/0096‑3445.113.1.121
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  79. Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R.
    (1981) Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi , B. L. Webber , & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Clausner, T. C. , & Croft, W.
    (1999) Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–31. 10.1515/cogl.1999.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001 [Google Scholar]
  81. Clifton, N. R.
    (1983) The figure in film. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Cohen, R.
    (1987) Problems of intercultural communication in Egyptian-American diplomatic relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11 (1), 29–47. 10.1016/0147‑1767(87)90030‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(87)90030-7 [Google Scholar]
  83. Colebrook, C.
    (2004) Irony. The new critical idiom. London & New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Colston, H. L. , & Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    (2002) Are irony and metaphor understood differently?Metaphor and Symbol, 17 (1), 57–80. 10.1207/S15327868MS1701_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1701_5 [Google Scholar]
  85. 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. 10.1023/A:1023229304509
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023229304509 [Google Scholar]
  86. Colston, H. L. , & O’Brien, J.
    (2000) Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30 (2), 179–199. 10.1207/S15326950DP3002_05
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3002_05 [Google Scholar]
  87. Coulson, S.
    (2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2005) Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson , & B. Lewandowska-Tomasczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp.129–144). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. (2006) Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In G. Kristiansen , M. Achard , R. Dirven , & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp.187–208). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Coulson, S. , & Van Petten, C.
    (2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30 , 958–968. 10.3758/BF03195780
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780 [Google Scholar]
  91. (2007) A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension?: ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research, 1146 , 128–145. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  92. Crisp, P.
    (2005) Allegory and symbol – a fundamental opposition?Language and Literature, 14 (4), 323–338. 10.1177/0963947005051287
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947005051287 [Google Scholar]
  93. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 , 335–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Cruse, D. A.
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Cuenca, M. J.
    (2015) Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (1), 140–166. 10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue [Google Scholar]
  96. Currie, G.
    (2006) Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of imagination (pp.111–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  97. Cuyckens, H. , & Zawada, B.
    (2001) Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.177
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.177 [Google Scholar]
  98. Dancygier, B. , & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Danesi, M.
    (2017) The bidirectionality of metaphor. Poetics Today, 38 (1), 15–33. 10.1215/03335372‑3716201
     https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716201 [Google Scholar]
  100. Davenport, T. , & Coulson, S.
    (2013) Hemispheric asymmetry in interpreting novel literal language: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 51 (5), 907–921. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.018 [Google Scholar]
  101. De Groot, A. M. B. , & Hagoort, P.
    (Eds.) (2018) Research methods in psycholinguists and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Deamer, F. , Pouscoulous, N. , & Breheny, R.
    (2010) A contrastive look at metaphor and hyperbole. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 22 , 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Del Campo Martínez, N.
    (2011) Cognitive modeling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2), 392–412. 10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del [Google Scholar]
  104. Dewell, R. B.
    (1994)  Over again: Image schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4), 351–380. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351 [Google Scholar]
  105. (2005) Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe (In cooperation with Grady, J. E. ) (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.369–393). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.5.369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.369 [Google Scholar]
  106. Dik, S. C.
    (1997) The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Díez, O. I.
    (2005) Un análisis cognitivo de las metonimias de las partes del cuerpo: Clasificación, motivación construccional y modos de interacción [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of La Rioja.
  108. Dirven, R.
    (1993) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense Bijdragen, 82 , 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 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]
  110. Dirven, R. , Polzenhagen, F. , & Wolf, H.-G.
    (2010) Cognitive linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse analysis. In D. Geeraerts , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.1222–1240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Dodge, E. , & 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.57–91). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  112. Donnellan, K. S.
    (1966) Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75 (3), 281–304. 10.2307/2183143
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2183143 [Google Scholar]
  113. Dupriez, B. M.
    (1991) A dictionary of literary devices: Gradus, A-Z. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442670303
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442670303 [Google Scholar]
  114. Dynel, M.
    (2016) Two layers of overt untruthfulness. When irony meets metaphor, hyperbole or meiosis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23 (2), 259–283. 10.1075/pc.23.2.03dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.2.03dyn [Google Scholar]
  115. (2017) Implicitness via overt untruthfulness. Grice on quality-based figures of speech. In P. Cap , & M. Dynel (Eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse (pp.121–145). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.06dyn
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.06dyn [Google Scholar]
  116. (2018) Irony, deception, and humor. Seeking the truth about overt and covert truthfulness. Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501507922
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507922 [Google Scholar]
  117. Edelmann, R. J. , Asendorpf, J. , Contarello, A. , Zammuner, V. , Georgas, J. , & Villanueva, C.
    (1989) Self-reported expression of embarrassment in five European cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20 (4), 357–371. 10.1177/0022022189204002
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022189204002 [Google Scholar]
  118. Edwards, D.
    (2010) Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33 (4), 347–373. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01 [Google Scholar]
  119. Evans, V.
    (2009) How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  120. Everett, D. L.
    (2005) Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46 (4), 621–634. 10.1086/431525
     https://doi.org/10.1086/431525 [Google Scholar]
  121. Falkum, I. L.
    (2007) A relevance-theoretic analysis of concept narrowing and broadening in English and Norwegian original texts and translations. Languages in Contrast, 7 (2), 119–141. 10.1075/lic.7.2.03fal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.03fal [Google Scholar]
  122. Fauconnier, G.
    (1994) Mental spaces (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  123. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  124. (2009) Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans , & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.147–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.12fau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.12fau [Google Scholar]
  125. (2018) Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004360716
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004360716 [Google Scholar]
  126. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1994) Conceptual projection and middle spaces. Technical Report 9401. UCSD, Department of Cognitive Science, San Diego. (online access atcogsci.ucsd.eduand fromwww.wam.umd.edu/~mturn)
  127. (1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  129. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. (2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005 [Google Scholar]
  131. Feldman, J. , & Narayanan, S.
    (2004) Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89 (2), 385–392. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00355‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00355-9 [Google Scholar]
  132. Filippova, E. , & Astington, J. W.
    (2010) Children’s understanding of social-cognitive and social communicative aspects of discourse irony. Child Development, 81 (3), 913–928. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2010.01442.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01442.x [Google Scholar]
  133. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The case for case. In E. Bach , & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. (1971) Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg , & L. Jacobovitz (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp.370–392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6 , 222–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Fillmore, C. J. , & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Towards a frame-based lexicon: the case of RISK. In A. Lehrer , & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp.75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Fillmore, C. J. , Johnson, C. R. , & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3), 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  139. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical construction: The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64 (3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  140. Fogelin, R. J.
    (1988) Figuratively speaking. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. (2011) Figuratively speaking (2nd ed. – revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199739998.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199739998.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  142. Forceville, Ch.
    (2002) The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (1), 1–14. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00007‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00007-8 [Google Scholar]
  143. Fougner, A.
    (2014) La créativité traductionnelle – résultante d’une aptitude à visualiser. FORUM, 12 (1), 137–163. 10.1075/forum.12.1.07ryd
     https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.12.1.07ryd [Google Scholar]
  144. Freeman, M. H.
    (2017) Multimodalities of metaphor: A perspective from the poetic arts. Poetics Today, 38 (1), 61–92. 10.1215/03335372‑3716228
     https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716228 [Google Scholar]
  145. Frisson, S. , & Pickering, M.
    (1999) The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (6), 1366–1383. 10.1037//0278‑7393.25.6.1366
     https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.25.6.1366 [Google Scholar]
  146. (2001) Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 149–172. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678893
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678893 [Google Scholar]
  147. Galera, A.
    (2020) The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (1), 19–41. 10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas [Google Scholar]
  148. Gamerschlag, T. , Gerland, D. , Osswald, R. , & Petersen, W.
    (Eds.) (2014) Frames and concept types. Applications in language and philosophy. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01541‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5 [Google Scholar]
  149. Garmendia, J.
    (2018) Irony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316136218
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316136218 [Google Scholar]
  150. Gentner, D. , & Bowdle, B. F.
    (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 223–247. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896 [Google Scholar]
  151. Gentner, D. , Imai, M. , & Boroditsky, L.
    (2002) As time goes by: Understanding time as spatial metaphor. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17 , 537–565.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Gernsbacher, M. A. , Keysar, B. , Robertson, R. W. , & Werner, N. K.
    (2001) The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45 (3), 433–450. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2782
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782 [Google Scholar]
  153. Geurts, B.
    (2009) Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24 (1), 51–79. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2008.01353.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x [Google Scholar]
  154. Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (1986a) On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115 (1), 3–15. 10.1037/0096‑3445.115.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  155. (1986b) What makes some indirect speech acts conventional?Journal of Memory and Language, 25 (2), 181–196. 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90028‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90028-8 [Google Scholar]
  156. (1986c) Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62 (1), 41–57. 10.1016/0001‑6918(86)90004‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(86)90004-1 [Google Scholar]
  157. (1990) Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16 (1), 56–66. 10.1037//0278‑7393.16.1.56
     https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.1.56 [Google Scholar]
  158. (1994) The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. (2000a) Making good psychology out of blending theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3&4), 347–358. 10.1515/cogl.2001.020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.020 [Google Scholar]
  160. (2000b) Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1&2), 5–27. 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862 [Google Scholar]
  161. (2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what speakers say and implicate. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (4), 457–486. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00046‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
  162. (2005a) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.35–56). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. (2005b) Embodied action in thought and language. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.225–247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  164. (2006a) Embodiment in cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. (2006b) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  166. (2007) Irony among friends. In R. W. Gibbs , & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader (pp.339–360). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410616685
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410616685 [Google Scholar]
  167. (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48 (8), 529–562. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  168. (2013) The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 40 , 45–52. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  169. (2014) Embodied metaphor. In J. Littlemore , & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.167–184). London: Blooomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. (2017) Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107762350
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350 [Google Scholar]
  171. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. , & Colston, H. L.
    (1995) The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (4), 347–378. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347 [Google Scholar]
  172. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. , & Colston, H. L.
    (2006) Figurative language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguitics (2nd ed.) (pp.835–861). London & Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑012369374‑7/50022‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50022-5 [Google Scholar]
  173. (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  174. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. , & Gerrig, R. J.
    (1989) How context makes metaphor comprehension seem “special”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4 (3), 145–158. 10.1207/s15327868ms0403_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0403_3 [Google Scholar]
  175. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. , & Izett, C. D.
    (2005) Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp.131–151). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  176. Gibbs, R. W., Jr. , & Matlock, T.
    (2008) Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (p.161–176). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011 [Google Scholar]
  177. Giora, R.
    (1995) On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19 , 239–264. 10.1080/01638539509544916
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544916 [Google Scholar]
  178. (1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3), 183–206. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  179. (2001) Irony and its discontent. In D. Shram , & G. Steen (Eds). Utretch publications in general and comparative literature. The psychology and sociology of literature: in Honour of Elrud Isch, vol. 35 (pp.165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/upal.35.11gio
     https://doi.org/10.1075/upal.35.11gio [Google Scholar]
  180. (2002) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  181. Giora, R. , & Fein, O.
    (1999) Irony: Context and salience. Metaphor and Symbol, 14 (4), 241–257. 10.1207/S15327868MS1404_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1404_1 [Google Scholar]
  182. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Ganzi, J. , Alkeslassy Levi, N. , & Sabah, H.
    (2005) On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39 , 81–100. 10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3 [Google Scholar]
  183. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , Kaufman, R. , Eisenberg, D. , & Erez, S.
    (2009) Does an ‬ironic situation‭ favor an ironic interpretation?In G. Brone , & J. Vandaele (Eds.) Cognitive Poetics. Goals, gains and gaps (pp.383–399). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  184. Giora, R. , Fein, O. , & Schwartz, T.
    (1998) Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13 (2), 83–101. 10.1207/s15327868ms1302_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1302_1 [Google Scholar]
  185. Giora, R. , Gazal, O. , & Goldstein, I.
    (2012) Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. Metaphor and Symbol, 27 (1), 22–54. 10.1080/10926488.2012.638823
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.638823 [Google Scholar]
  186. Giora, R. , Givoni, S. , & Fein, O.
    (2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (4), 290–313. 10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804 [Google Scholar]
  187. Giora, R. , Zaidel, E. , Soroker, N. , Batori, G. , & Kasher, A.
    (2000) Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1&2), 63–83. 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678865
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678865 [Google Scholar]
  188. Glucksberg, S.
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  189. Glucksberg, S. , Gildea, P. , & Bookin, H. B.
    (1982) On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 21 (1), 85–98. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(82)90467‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90467-4 [Google Scholar]
  190. Glucksberg, S. , & Haught, C.
    (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21 (3), 360–378. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00282.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x [Google Scholar]
  191. Glucksberg, S. , & Keysar, B.
    (1993) How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.401–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020 [Google Scholar]
  192. Goatly, A.
    (1997) The language of metaphors. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203210000
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  193. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  194. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  195. Gonzálvez, F. , Peña, M. S. , & Pérez, L.
    (Eds.) (2013) Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Previously published inReview of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 2011). 10.1075/bct.56
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.56 [Google Scholar]
  196. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (3), 323–340. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  197. Grady, J.
    (1997a) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 267–290. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  198. (1997b) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
  199. (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs , & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  200. (2005a) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1595–1614. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  201. (2005b) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.35–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  202. Grady, J. , & Ascoli, G. A.
    (2017) Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.27–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.003 [Google Scholar]
  203. Grady, J. , Coulson, S. , & Oakley, T.
    (1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen , & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.101–124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.07gra [Google Scholar]
  204. 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. 10.1515/9783110219197.533
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.533 [Google Scholar]
  205. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole , & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp.43–58). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  206. Gruber, J.
    (1965) Studies in lexical relations [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/gruber65.pdf
  207. Haiman, J.
    (1998) Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  208. Hamamoto, H.
    (1998) Irony from a cognitive perspective. In R. Carston , & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp.257–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.14ham
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.14ham [Google Scholar]
  209. Hamilton, E. , & Huntington, C.
    (Eds.) (1961) The collected dialogues of Plato. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt1c84fb0
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1c84fb0 [Google Scholar]
  210. Hampe, B.
    (Ed.) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532 [Google Scholar]
  211. Handl, S.
    (2011) The conventionality of figurative language. A usage-based study. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  212. Harder, P.
    (2003) Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them?Cognitive Linguistics, 14 (1), 91–96. 10.1515/cogl.2003.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2003.004 [Google Scholar]
  213. Harris, R. , & Taylor, T. J.
    (1996) Landmarks in linguistic thought: The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  214. Haverkate, H.
    (1990) A speech-act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (1), 77–109. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90065‑L
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90065-L [Google Scholar]
  215. Hawkes, T.
    (1972) Metaphor. London & New York: Methuen.
     [Google Scholar]
  216. Henle, P.
    (1958) Metaphor. In P. Henle (Ed.) (1981), Language, thought and culture (pp.173–195). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Reprinted in M. Johnson (Ed.) (1981), Philosophical perspectives on metaphor (pp.83–104). Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  217. Heredia, R. R. , & Cieślicka, A. B.
    (Eds.) (2015) Bilingual figurative language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342100
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342100 [Google Scholar]
  218. Herrero-Ruiz, J.
    (2009) Understanding tropes. At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  219. (2018) Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and CAUSE FOR EFFECT/EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymies. Language & Communication, 62 , 51–65. 10.1016/j.langcom.2018.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  220. Hong, H. V.
    (Ed.) (1989) The concept of irony with continual reference to Socrates, by Soren Kierkegaard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  221. Hopper, P. J.
    (2012) Emergent Grammar. In J. Gee , & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp.301–312). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  222. Horn, L. R.
    (1972) On the semantic properties of logical operators in English (Publication No. 73–1702) [Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/images/stories/Horn.1972.pdf
  223. (1989) A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  224. Horn, L.
    (2017) Lie-toe-tease: Double negatives and unexcluded middles. Philosophical Studies, 174 (1), 79–103. 10.1007/s11098‑015‑0509‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0509-y [Google Scholar]
  225. Hübler, A.
    (1983) Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.iv.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.6 [Google Scholar]
  226. Huddleston, R. , & G. Pullum
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  227. Hussey, K. , & Katz, A. N.
    (2009) Perception of the use of metaphor by an interlocutor in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 24 (4), 203–236. 10.1080/10926480903310237
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480903310237 [Google Scholar]
  228. Hutcheon, L.
    (1994) Irony’s edge. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  229. Iza, A.
    (2015) Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. International Journal of English Studies, 15 (1), 71–96. 10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941 [Google Scholar]
  230. Jackendoff, R.
    (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  231. (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  232. Jakobson, R.
    (1971) The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jakobson , & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (pp.54–82). The Hague: Mouton. Reprinted in R. Dirven , & R. Pörings (Eds.) (2002) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.41–47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  233. Johnson, C.
    (1999) Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy. The case of see . In M. K. Hiraga , C. Sinha , & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.155–169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.152.12joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.152.12joh [Google Scholar]
  234. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  235. Kaan, E.
    (2007) Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (6), 571–591. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00037.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00037.x [Google Scholar]
  236. Kapogianni, E.
    (2011) Irony via “surrealism”. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humor across discourse domains (pp.51–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.210.05kap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210.05kap [Google Scholar]
  237. Katz, A. N.
    (1996) Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11 (1), 17–37. 10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2 [Google Scholar]
  238. (2005) Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In H. Colston , & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp.1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  239. Katz, A. N. , & Al-Azary, H.
    (2017) Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38 (1), 35–59. 10.1215/03335372‑3716215
     https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716215 [Google Scholar]
  240. Katz, A. N. , & Ferretti, T.
    (2001) Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3&4), 193–221. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678895
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678895 [Google Scholar]
  241. Kaufer, D.
    (1977) Irony and rhetorical strategy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 10 (2), 90–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  242. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 75 , 1–33. 10.2307/417472
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  243. Keysar, B.
    (1989) On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28 (4), 375–385. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90017‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90017-X [Google Scholar]
  244. Kittay, E. F.
    (1987) Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  245. 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. 10.1075/hcp.4.09koc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc [Google Scholar]
  246. Kövecses, Z.
    (1990) Emotion concepts. Berlin & New York: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑3312‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3312-1 [Google Scholar]
  247. (1999) Does metaphor reflect or constitute cultural models?In R. W., Jr. Gibbs , & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.167–188). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.10kov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.10kov [Google Scholar]
  248. Kövecses, Z.
    (2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  249. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  250. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  251. (2006) Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  252. (2008) Metaphor and emotion. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.380–396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.023 [Google Scholar]
  253. (2009) Metaphor, culture, and discourse: The pressure of coherence. In A. Musolff , & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp.11–24). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230594647_2
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_2 [Google Scholar]
  254. (2013) The metaphor–metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28 (2), 75–88. 10.1080/10926488.2013.768498
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498 [Google Scholar]
  255. (2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  256. (2020) Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  257. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  258. 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: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110216080.2.325
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216080.2.325 [Google Scholar]
  259. Kreuz, R. J. , Kassler, M. A. , & Coppenrath, L.
    (1998) The use of hyperbole in discourse: Cognitive and social facets. In S. R. Fussell , & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp.91–111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  260. 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. 10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3 [Google Scholar]
  261. Kreuz, R. J. , Roberts, R. M. , Johnson, B. K. , & Bertus, E. L.
    (1996) Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature. In R. J. Kreuz , & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp.83–98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  262. Kroll, J. F. , & Rossi, E.
    (2013) Bilingualism and multilingualism: Quantitative methods. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encylopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781405198431
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431 [Google Scholar]
  263. 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 (1), 3–21. 10.1037/0096‑3445.124.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  264. Kunneman, F. , Liebrecht, C. , Van den Bosch, A. , & Van Mulken, M.
    (2015) Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing and Management, 51 (4), 500–509. 10.1016/j.ipm.2014.07.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  265. Lakoff, G.
    (1986) The meanings of literal. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1 (4), 291–296. 10.1207/s15327868ms0104_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0104_3 [Google Scholar]
  266. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  267. Lakoff, G.
    (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (1), 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  268. Lakoff, G.
    (1992) Metaphors and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Studies in honour of Rene Dirven on occasion of his 60th birthday. Thirty years of linguistic evolution (pp.463–482). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.61.36lak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.61.36lak [Google Scholar]
  269. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  270. (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]
  271. (2009) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.17–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  272. (2014) Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 , 1–14. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar]
  273. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  274. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  275. (2003) Metaphors we live by (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  276. Lakoff, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  277. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  278. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  279. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  280. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.24–63). Stanford: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9783110800524.91
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524.91 [Google Scholar]
  281. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  282. Langlotz, A.
    (2015) Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model. Language and Cognition, 7 (4), 515–545. 10.1017/langcog.2015.21
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.21 [Google Scholar]
  283. Lausberg, H.
    (1990) Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Hueber.
     [Google Scholar]
  284. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London & New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  285. (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  286. Leezenberg, M.
    (2001) Contexts of metaphor. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780585473932
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585473932 [Google Scholar]
  287. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  288. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  289. López-Rodríguez, I.
    (2009) Of women, bitches, chickens and vixens: Animal metaphors for women in English and Spanish. Cultura, lenguaje y representación, 7 , 77–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  290. Lovejoy, A. O.
    (1936) The Great Chain of Being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  291. Lozano-Palacio, I. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2022) Modeling irony: A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  292. Luck, S. J.
    (2014) An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge & London: The MIT press.
     [Google Scholar]
  293. Mairal, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler , & J. Martín-Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  294. Mandler, J.
    (2004) The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  295. Mandler, J. M. , & Pagán, C. C.
    (2014) On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6 (4), 510–532. 10.1017/langcog.2014.14
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14 [Google Scholar]
  296. Martinich, A. P.
    (1984) Communication and reference. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110856255
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856255 [Google Scholar]
  297. Matlock, T.
    (2004) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32 (8), 1389–1400. 10.3758/BF03206329
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329 [Google Scholar]
  298. McCarthy, M. , & Carter, R.
    (2004) “There’s millions of them”: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (2), 149–184. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00116‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4 [Google Scholar]
  299. Miller, G. A.
    (1993) Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.357–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.019 [Google Scholar]
  300. Mio, J. S. , & Katz, A. N.
    (Eds.) (1996) Metaphor: Implications and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  301. Miró, I.
    (2018) Combining metaphors: From metaphoric amalgams to binary systems. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38 (1), 81–104. 10.1080/07268602.2018.1393860
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1393860 [Google Scholar]
  302. Mittelberg, I.
    (2010) Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In V. Evans , & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp.351–385). London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  303. (2013) The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In C. Müller , A. Cienki , E. Fricke , S. H. Ladewig , D. McNeill , & S. Tessendorf (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol.1) (pp.750–779). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261318.755
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.755 [Google Scholar]
  304. Mittelberg, I. , & Joue, G.
    (2017) Source actions ground metaphor via metonymy: Toward a frame-based account of gestural action in multimodal discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.119–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.008 [Google Scholar]
  305. Mooij, J. J. A.
    (1976) A study of metaphor. Amsterdam: North Holland.
     [Google Scholar]
  306. Moore, K. E.
    (2014a) The spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.42 [Google Scholar]
  307. (2014b) The two-mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 375–409. 10.1075/rcl.12.2.05moo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.05moo [Google Scholar]
  308. Morgan, J. L.
    (1993) Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.124–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.010 [Google Scholar]
  309. Morrison, D. R.
    (Ed.) (2011) The Cambridge companion to Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCOL9780521833424
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521833424 [Google Scholar]
  310. Muecke, D. C.
    (1970) Irony and the ironic: The critical idiom. London: Methuen.
     [Google Scholar]
  311. Murphy, J. J.
    (Ed.) (2010) Arguments in rhetoric against Quintilian: Translation and text of Peter Ramus’s Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum (1549) (Translated by Carole Newlands . 2nd ed.Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press).
     [Google Scholar]
  312. Musolff, A.
    (2017) Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 109 , 95–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  313. Nemesi, A. L.
    (2010) Data-gathering methods in research on hyperbole production and interpretation. In E. T. Nemeth , & K. Bibok (Eds.), The role of data at the semantic-pragmatic interface (pp.381–417). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110240276.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240276.381 [Google Scholar]
  314. Nerlich, B. , & Clarke, D. D.
    (1999) Synecdoche as a cognitive and communicative strategy. In A. Blank , & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp.197–214). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  315. Nerlich, B. , & Chamizo, P. J.
    (2003) The use of literally: Vice or virtue?Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1 , 193–206. 10.1075/arcl.1.11ner
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.11ner [Google Scholar]
  316. Nevins, A. , Pesetsky, D. , & Rodrigues, C.
    (2009) Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85 , 355–404. 10.1353/lan.0.0107
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0107 [Google Scholar]
  317. Norrick, N. R.
    (2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (9), 1727–1739. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  318. Noveck, I. , Bianco, M. , & Castry, A.
    (2001) The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (1&2), 109–12. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678889
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678889 [Google Scholar]
  319. Nunberg, G.
    (1995) Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12 (2), 109–132. 10.1093/jos/12.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  320. Oakley, T.
    (2010) Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0009 [Google Scholar]
  321. Ortony, A.
    (Ed.) (1993) Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865 [Google Scholar]
  322. Padilla, M.
    (Ed.) (2016) Relevance theory. Recent developments, current challenges and future directions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268 [Google Scholar]
  323. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  324. Panther, K.-U. , & Thornburg, L.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (6), 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  325. Panther, K-U. , & Thornburg, L.
    (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. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  326. Panther, K. , & Thornburg, L.
    (2000) The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads (pp.215–232). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  327. Panther, K-U. , Thornburg, L. , & Barcelona, A.
    (Eds.) (2009) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  328. Peña, M. S.
    (2003) Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  329. (2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (6), 1041–1066. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  330. (2016) Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14 (2), 474–497. 10.1075/rcl.14.2.08pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.08pen [Google Scholar]
  331. (2019) How do hyperbolic effects emerge?In A. C. Pelosi & M. F. Fontenelle Carneiro (Eds.), Linguagem e pensamento: Pesquisas, reflexões e práticas (pp.155–176). São Luís, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Brasil: EDUFMA.
     [Google Scholar]
  332. (forthcoming). For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health: A cognitive-linguistic approach to merism. Metaphor and Symbol.
     [Google Scholar]
  333. Peña, M. 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. 10.1075/hcp.25.21pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.21pen [Google Scholar]
  334. (2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp.41–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56.02pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.02pen [Google Scholar]
  335. Pérez, L. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2002) Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34 (3), 259–284. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80002‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9 [Google Scholar]
  336. Pérez-Sobrino, P.
    (2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  337. Pfaff, K. , Gibbs, R. , & Johnson, M.
    (1997) Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18 , 59–83. 10.1017/S0142716400009875
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009875 [Google Scholar]
  338. Piskorska, A. , & Wałaszewska, E.
    (Eds.) (2017) Applications of Relevance Theory. From discourse to morphemes. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  339. Pomerantz, A.
    (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9 (2&3), 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  340. Popa-Wyatt, M.
    (2014) Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6 (1), 127–168. 10.1163/18773109‑00601007
     https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601007 [Google Scholar]
  341. (2020) Mind the gap: Expressing affect with hyperbole and hyperbolic figures. In J. Barnden , & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp.449–468). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.10.16pop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.16pop [Google Scholar]
  342. Prandi, M.
    (2017) Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language. New York & Lodon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315208763
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208763 [Google Scholar]
  343. Quintero, R.
    (2007) Introduction: Understanding satire. In R. Quintero (Ed.), A companion to satire: Ancient and modern (pp.1–12). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996959.ch1
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996959.ch1 [Google Scholar]
  344. Radden, G.
    (1996) Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going . In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp.423–458). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  345. Récanati, F.
    (1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4 (4), 295–329. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1989.tb00258.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00258.x [Google Scholar]
  346. Récanati, F.
    (1993) Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  347. (2007) Indexicality, context and pretense: A speech-act theory account. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics (pp.213–229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_11
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_11 [Google Scholar]
  348. Regel, S. , Coulson, S. , & Gunter, T. C.
    (2010) The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research, 1311 , 121–135. 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.077
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.077 [Google Scholar]
  349. Regel, S. , Gunter, T. C. , & Friederici, A. D.
    (2011) Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (2), 277–293. 10.1162/jocn.2010.21411
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21411 [Google Scholar]
  350. Reyes, A. , & Rosso, P.
    (2014) On the difficulty of automatically detecting irony: Beyond a simple case of negation. Knowledge and Information Systems, 40 (3), 595–614. 10.1007/s10115‑013‑0652‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-013-0652-8 [Google Scholar]
  351. Rich, A. N. , & Mattingley, J. B.
    (2002) Anomalous perception in synesthesia: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3 (1), 43–52. 10.1038/nrn702
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn702 [Google Scholar]
  352. Richards, I. A.
    (1925) Principles of literary criticism. London: Kegan Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  353. (1936) The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  354. Ritchie, L. D.
    (2004) Metaphors in conversational context: Toward a connectivity theory of metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 19 (4), 265–287. 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_2 [Google Scholar]
  355. (2017) Contextual activation of story simulation in metaphor comprehension. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.220–238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.013 [Google Scholar]
  356. 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: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.2.165
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.2.165 [Google Scholar]
  357. (2007) Embodiment and experientialism. In D. Geeraerts , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.25–47). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  358. Romano, M.
    (2015) Are similes and metaphors interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–33. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom [Google Scholar]
  359. Romero, E. , & Soria, B.
    (2014) Relevance Theory and metaphor. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14 (3), 1–22. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140303‑0314
     https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140303-0314 [Google Scholar]
  360. Rubio-Fernández, P. , Wearing, C. , & Carston, R.
    (2013) How metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theoretic account of loose use. In D. Mazzarella , I. Needham-Didsbury , & K. Tang (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 35 , 20–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  361. Rubio-Fernández, P. , Wearing, C. , & Carston, R.
    (2015) Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30 (1), 24–40. 10.1080/10926488.2015.980699
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980699 [Google Scholar]
  362. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1996) Blended spaces and the pragmatic approach to cognition. In B. Penas (Ed.), The intertextual dimension of discourse (pp.233–244). Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza.
     [Google Scholar]
  363. (1997a) Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis: Revista Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, 19 (1), 281–295.
     [Google Scholar]
  364. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1997b) Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6 (2), 161–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  365. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (3), 259–274. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00006‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X [Google Scholar]
  366. (1999a) Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.
     [Google Scholar]
  367. (1999b) From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Linguistic LAUD Agency. University of Essen. Series A. General and Theoretical Papers. Paper no. 492.
     [Google Scholar]
  368. (2000) 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]
  369. (2005) Construing meaning through conceptual mappings. In P. Fuertes (Ed.), Lengua y sociedad: aportaciones recientes en Lingüística Cognitiva, Lingüística del Corpus, Lenguajes de Especialidad y Lenguas en Contacto (pp.19–38). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.
     [Google Scholar]
  370. (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. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  371. (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 (pp.143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  372. (2014b) Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27 (1), 187–207. 10.1075/resla.27.1.08rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.08rui [Google Scholar]
  373. (2014c) 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. 10.1075/slcs.150.15iba
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.15iba [Google Scholar]
  374. (2015) Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (3), 258–274. 10.3844/jssp.2015.258.274
     https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2015.258.274 [Google Scholar]
  375. (2017a) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  376. (2017b) Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 30 (1), 297–322. 10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui [Google Scholar]
  377. (2017c) Cognitive modeling and irony. In A. Athanasiadou , & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.179–200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.1.09dem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.09dem [Google Scholar]
  378. (2020a) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71 , 16–38. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  379. (2020b) Figurative language: Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden , & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp.469–510). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.10.17rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.17rui [Google Scholar]
  380. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2021) Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and grammar-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004439221
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439221 [Google Scholar]
  381. 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]
  382. 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. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  383. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Díez, O.
    (2004) Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden , & K.-U. Panther (Eds), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.293–320). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  384. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  385. (2020) The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp.283–308). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui [Google Scholar]
  386. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Gómez, M. A.
    (2014) Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. A. Gómez , F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , F. Gonzálvez , & A. Downing (Eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (pp.295–314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui [Google Scholar]
  387. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Lozano-Palacio, I.
    (2019a) Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5 (1), 147–173. 10.1163/23526416‑00501006
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501006 [Google Scholar]
  388. (2019b) A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34 (2), 127–138. 10.1080/10926488.2019.1611714
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611714 [Google Scholar]
  389. (2021) On verbal and situational irony: Towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp.213–240). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.11.07rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.07rui [Google Scholar]
  390. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Luzondo, A.
    (2016) Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8 (1), 32–58. 10.1017/langcog.2014.41
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.41 [Google Scholar]
  391. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Mairal, R.
    (2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden , K.-M. Köpcke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp.33–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.05rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.05rui [Google Scholar]
  392. (2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42 (3&4), 355–400. 10.1515/FLIN.2008.355
     https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.355 [Google Scholar]
  393. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Miró, I.
    (2019) On the cognitive grounding of agent-deprofiling constructions as a case of pretense constructions. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 32 (2), 573–589. 10.1075/resla.17006.men
     https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17006.men [Google Scholar]
  394. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Otal, J. L.
    (2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada: Comares.
     [Google Scholar]
  395. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Peña, M. S.
    (2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.254–280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  396. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Peña, M. S.
    (2008) Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez-González , J. L. Mackenzie , & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive Perspectives (pp.251–280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui [Google Scholar]
  397. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Pérez, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21 (4), 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  398. (2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther , & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp.23–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui [Google Scholar]
  399. (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  400. Rumelhart, D. E.
    (1993) Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.71–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.007 [Google Scholar]
  401. 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]
  402. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1988) Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (1), 55–62. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90019‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7 [Google Scholar]
  403. (1990) On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp.51–77). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  404. (2000) When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21 (2), 205–243. 10.1093/applin/21.2.205
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205 [Google Scholar]
  405. Schifanella, R. , de Juan, P. , Tetreault, J. , & Cao, L.
    (2016) Detecting sarcasm in multimodal social platforms. Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp.1136–1145). Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/2964284.2964321
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2964284.2964321 [Google Scholar]
  406. Schwoebel, J. , Dews, S. , Winner, E. , & Srinivas, K.
    (2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15 (1&2), 47–61. 10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864 [Google Scholar]
  407. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  408. (1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13 (1), 217–224. 10.1007/BF00160894
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894 [Google Scholar]
  409. (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  410. (1993) Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.83–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.008 [Google Scholar]
  411. Seto, K.
    (1998) On non-echoic irony. In R. Carston , & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp.239–255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.13set
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.13set [Google Scholar]
  412. Seto, K.
    (1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther , & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.91–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.06set
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set [Google Scholar]
  413. Seto, K.
    (2003) Metonymic polysemy and its place in meaning extension. In B. Nerlich , Z. Todd , V. Herman , & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp.195–216). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895698.195
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.195 [Google Scholar]
  414. Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D.
    (1986) Loose talk. InProceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 86 (1), 153–172. 10.1093/aristotelian/86.1.153
     https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/86.1.153 [Google Scholar]
  415. (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  416. (2008) A deflationary theory of metaphor. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.84–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  417. Spitzbardt, H.
    (1963) Overstatement and understatement in British and American English. Philologica Pragensia, 6 , 277–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  418. Steen, G. J. , Dorst, A. G. , Berenike Herrmann, J. , Kaal, A. , Krennmayr, T. , & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  419. Stirling, L.
    (1996) Metonymy and anaphora. In W. Mulder , & L. Tasmowki (Eds.), Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 10 (Coherence and anaphora), 69–88. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bjl.10.06sti
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.10.06sti [Google Scholar]
  420. Strik Lievers, F.
    (2017) Figures and the senses. Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 83–101. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str [Google Scholar]
  421. Talmy, L.
    (1988) The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.165–205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.08tal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.08tal [Google Scholar]
  422. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I: Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  423. Taverniers, M.
    (2017) Metaphor in pragmatics. In A. Barron , Y. Gu , & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp.323–340). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  424. Tendahl, M.
    (2009) A hybrid theory of metaphor. Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230244313
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244313 [Google Scholar]
  425. Tendahl, M. , & Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (11), 1823–1864. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  426. Tobin, V. , & Israel, M.
    (2012) Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. In B. Dancygier , & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language (pp.24–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.004 [Google Scholar]
  427. Todorov, T.
    (1970) Synecdoches. Communications, 16 , 26–35. 10.3406/comm.1970.1227
     https://doi.org/10.3406/comm.1970.1227 [Google Scholar]
  428. Turner, M.
    (1996) The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  429. (2008) Frame blending. In R. Rossini Favretti (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp.13–32). Bologna: Bononia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  430. Turner, M. , & Fauconnier, G.
    (1995) Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (3), 183–204. 10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3 [Google Scholar]
  431. Tversky, A.
    (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (4), 327–352. 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.4.327
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 [Google Scholar]
  432. Ungerer, F. , & Schmid, H. J.
    (1996) An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  433. Van Dijk, T.
    (2009) Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511575273
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273 [Google Scholar]
  434. Van Heuven, W. J. B. , & Dijkstra, T.
    (2010) Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64 (1), 104–122. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  435. Veale, T.
    (2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  436. Veale, T. , & Hao, Y.
    (2010, August16–20). Detecting ironic intent in creative comparisons [Conference presentation]. 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Lisbon, Portugal.
     [Google Scholar]
  437. Vega Moreno, R. E.
    (2007) Creativity and convention. The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.156
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.156 [Google Scholar]
  438. Walaszewska, E.
    (2011) Broadening and narrowing in lexical development: How relevance theory can account for children’s overextensions and underextensions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 314–326. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.017 [Google Scholar]
  439. Walton, D. N.
    (2007) Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.5 [Google Scholar]
  440. Walton, K. L.
    (2017) Meiosis, hyperbole, irony. Philosophical Studies, 174 (1), 105–120. 10.1007/s11098‑015‑0546‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0546-6 [Google Scholar]
  441. Way, E. C.
    (1991) Knowledge representation and metaphor. Oxford: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7941‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7941-4 [Google Scholar]
  442. Whitehead, K. A.
    (2015) Extreme-case formulations. In K. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp.1–5). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi011
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi011 [Google Scholar]
  443. Wilson, D.
    (2011) Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8 (2), 177–196. 10.1515/iprg.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  444. (2013) Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59 (A), 40–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  445. Wilson, D. , & Carston, R.
    (2006) Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language, 21 (3), 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  446. (2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference, and ad hoc concepts. In E. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.230–260). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  447. Wilson, D. , & Sperber, D.
    (1981) On verbal irony. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.195–318). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  448. (2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson , & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp.123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
  449. Wilson, M.
    (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 , 625–636. 10.3758/BF03196322
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322 [Google Scholar]
  450. Winner, E. , & Gardner, H.
    (1993) Metaphor and irony: Two levels of understanding. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.425–443). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.021 [Google Scholar]
  451. Winter, B.
    (2019) Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed , C. O’Meara , L. San Roque , & A. Majid (Eds.), Perceptual metaphor (pp.105–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.06win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.06win [Google Scholar]
  452. Wolff, P. , & Gentner, D.
    (2011) Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35 (8), 1456–1488. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2011.01194.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x [Google Scholar]
  453. Yamanashi, M.
    (1998) Some issues in the treatment of irony and related tropes. In R. Carston , & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp.271–282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.15yam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.15yam [Google Scholar]
  454. Zekavat, M.
    (2019) Reflexive humour and satire: A critical review. European Journal of Humour Research, 7 (4), 125–136. 10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.zekavat
     https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.zekavat [Google Scholar]
  455. Zinken, J. , & Musolff, A.
    (2009) A discourse-centred perspective on metaphorical meaning and understanding. In A. Musolff , & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp.1–8). Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230594647_1
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_1 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027257796
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027257796
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027257796
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027257796
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