Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics

image of Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics

This textbook is designed for advanced (graduate and postgraduate) students, and will also be of interest to scholars. It blends a cognitive linguistic approach to language and language use with insights from contemporary pragmatics, the ultimate aim being to advance a unified model of cognitive pragmatics. Basic themes in cognitive linguistics and pragmatics are covered ranging from figurative language and thought, e.g. conceptual metaphor and metonymy, the role of inferencing in the construction of meaning, in particular, indirect speech acts, to the conceptual and functional motivation of morphosyntactic structure. Finally, the book offers many suggestions and ideas for student papers as well as larger research projects that promise to reveal new insights into conceptual structure, communicative function, and their influence on the grammatical structure of language.


  1. Akmajian, A. , Demers, R. A. , Farmer, A. K. , & Harnish, R. M.
    2010Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. 6th edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aliseda, A.
    2006Abductive Reasoning: Logical Investigations into Discovery and Explanation (Synthese Library: Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science30). Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allott, N.
    2010Key Terms in Pragmatics. London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambler, E.
    2001 [1937]Background to Danger. New York: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ariel, M.
    2008Grammar and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2010Defining Pragmatics (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnaud, A. & Lancelot, C.
    1660Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Pierre Le Petit. [Online access:gallica.bnf.fr/]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Athanasiadou, A.
    2017 Irony has a metonymic basis. In: A. Athanasiadou & H. L. Colston , eds.Irony in Language Use and Communication (Figurative Thought and Language1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 201–216. 10.1075/ftl.1.10ath
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.10ath [Google Scholar]
  9. Austin, J. L.
    1961Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1962How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1971 Performative – constative. In: J. R. Searle , ed.The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 13–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M.
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Baicchi, A.
    2012On Acting and Thinking: Studies Bridging between Speech Acts and Cognition. Pisa: Edizioni ETS.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Barcelona, A.
    2015 Metonymy. In: Dąbrowska, E. , & Divjak, D. , eds. 2015 The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 143–167. 10.1515/9783110292022‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Barnden, J. A.
    2010 Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics21.1: 1–34. 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Benczes, R.
    2014 Repetitions which are not repetitions: the non-redundant nature of tautological compounds. English Language and Linguistics18.3: 431–447. 10.1017/S1360674314000112
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000112 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2019Rhyme over Reason: Phonological Motivation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108649131
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649131 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bergman, M. & Paavola, S.
    eds. 2014The Commens Dictionary: Peirce’s Terms in His Own Words. New Edition. [Term ‘Metaphor’ retrieved fromwww.commens.org/ dictionary/term/metaphor].
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bierwiaczonek, B.
    2013Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Birner, B. J.
    2013Introduction to Pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Blakemore, D.
    1987Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Borsley, D. , & Newmeyer, F. J.
    2009 On subject-auxiliary inversion and the notion “purely formal generalization”. Cognitive Linguistics20: 135–145. 10.1515/COGL.2009.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.007 [Google Scholar]
  23. Brdar, M.
    2017Metonymy and Word Formation: Their Interaction and Complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Broccias, C.
    2003The English Change Network (Cognitive Linguistics Research22). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110901207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110901207 [Google Scholar]
  25. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  26. Brown, K. & Miller, J.
    2013The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139049412
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139049412 [Google Scholar]
  27. Brugman, C. , & Lakoff, G.
    1986 The semantics of aux-inversion and anaphora constraints. Unpublished paper: University of California at Berkeley.
  28. Buchler, J.
    1955Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Burgers, C. , Konijn. E. A. , & Steen, G. J.
    2016 Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory26.4: 410–430. 10.1111/comt.12096
    https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096 [Google Scholar]
  30. Burkhardt, A.
    1986Soziale Akte, Sprechakte und Textillokutionen: A. Reinachs Rechtsphilosophie und die moderne Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111371573
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371573 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cann, R.
    1993Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166317
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166317 [Google Scholar]
  32. Carston, R.
    2012 Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt , eds.The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 469–492. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.025 [Google Scholar]
  33. Choi, Y.
    2012 Semantic comparison between English -er nominals and Korean -i nominals. Discourse and Cognition19.3: 297–319. 10.15718/discog.2012.19.3.297
    https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2012.19.3.297 [Google Scholar]
  34. Chomsky, N.
    1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1959 A review of B. F. Skinner’sVerbal Behavior. Language35.1: 26–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1975Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V.
    1977Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cobley, P.
    ed. 2010The Routledge Companion to Semiotics. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Coetzee, J. M.
    2016The Schooldays of Jesus. Melbourne: The Text Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Comrie, B.
    1988 Topics, grammaticalized topics, and subjects. In: S. Axmaker , A. Jaisser , & H. Singmaster , eds.Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 265–279. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1798
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1798 [Google Scholar]
  41. Conant, L. L.
    1931The Number Concept: Its Origin and Development. New York & London: Macmillan and Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Croft, W.
    1995 Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language71.3: 490–532. 10.2307/416218
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416218 [Google Scholar]
  43. Croft, W. & Cruse, A.
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  44. Cruse, A.
    2006A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Crystal, D.
    1997The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2008A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444302776
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776 [Google Scholar]
  47. Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R.
    2005Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D.
    eds. 2015The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022 [Google Scholar]
  49. Dancygier, B.
    ed. 2017The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732 [Google Scholar]
  50. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
    2014Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Davidson, D.
    1978 What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry5.1: 31–47. 10.1086/447971
    https://doi.org/10.1086/447971 [Google Scholar]
  52. Davis, W.
    2014 Implicature. In: E. N. Zalta , ed.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Accessed at:https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/implicature].
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Deane, P. D.
    1992Grammar in Mind and Brain (Cognitive Linguistics Research2). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110886535
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886535 [Google Scholar]
  54. Denroche, C.
    2015Metonymy and Language: A New Theory of Linguistic Processing. New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Deutscher, G.
    2002 On the misuse of the notion of ‘abduction’ in linguistics. Journal of Linguistics38: 469–485. 10.1017/S002222670200169X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670200169X [Google Scholar]
  56. Dingemanse, M. , Blasi, D. E. , Lupyan, G. , Christiansen, M. H. , & Monaghan, P.
    2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science19.10: 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  57. Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M.
    eds. 2004Cognitive Explorations of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.1 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ducrot, O.
    1969 Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue française4: 300–43. 10.3406/lfr.1969.5456
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1969.5456 [Google Scholar]
  59. 1972Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Durkin, P.
    2009The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Evans, N.
    2007 Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva , ed.Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Evans, N. & Watanabe, H.
    eds. 2016Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language115). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  63. Evans, V.
    2007A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Evans, V. & Green, M.
    2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Fauconnier, G.
    1997Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2006 Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward , eds.The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 657–674. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  67. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexity. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Faust, M. & Mashal, N.
    2007 The role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: a divided visual field study. Neuropsychologia45: 860–879. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.08.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.08.010 [Google Scholar]
  69. Feist, J.
    2012Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Fillmore, C. J.
    1969 Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. Papers in Linguistics1.1: 81–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 1982 Frame semantics. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-81. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Fraser, B.
    1975 Hedged performatives. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan , eds.Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics3). New York: Academic Press, 44–66. 10.1163/9789004368811_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_008 [Google Scholar]
  73. Garner, B. A.
    2009Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.) St. Paul, MN: West.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Frege, G.
    1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik100: 25–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Geeraerts, D.
    2010Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H.
    eds. 2007The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Geis, M. L. & Zwicky, A. M.
    1971 On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry2.4: 561–566.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Gibbs, R. W.
    Jr. 1994The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Jr. 2005Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  80. Jr. 2006 Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language21.3: 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  81. Giora, R.
    2002 Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal?Journal of Pragmatics34: 487–506. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00045‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00045-5 [Google Scholar]
  82. Givón, T.
    1993English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction. Vol. I. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.engram1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.engram1 [Google Scholar]
  83. Goffman, E.
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Goldberg, A.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 1996 Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics7(1): 3–19. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  86. 2006Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2009 The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics20(1): 93–127. 10.1515/COGL.2009.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.005 [Google Scholar]
  88. Goldsmith, J. A.
    1985 A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In: W. Eilfort , P. Kroeber & K. Peterson , eds.Papers from the 21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Gordon, D. & G. Lakoff
    1975 Conversational postulates. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan , eds.Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 83–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Grady, J.
    1997Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. UC Berkeley: Dissertations, Department of Linguistics. Retrieved fromhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/3q9427m2.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Grady, J. E.
    2005 Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics37: 1595–1614. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  92. Green, G.
    1989Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A.
    2016Le bon usage: Grammaire française. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Grice, H. P.
    1975 Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan , eds.Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). New York: Academic Press, 41–58. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  95. 1989Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Grundy, P.
    2000Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Heine, B.
    1997Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Horn, L. R.
    1988 Pragmatic theory. In: F. J. Newmeyer , ed.Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. I: Linguistic Theories: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Horn, L. R.
    1989A Natural History of Negation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 1991 Given as new: When redundant affirmation isn’t. Journal of Pragmatics15: 313–336. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90034‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90034-U [Google Scholar]
  101. 2006 Implicature. In: L. R. Horn & G. Ward , eds.Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch1
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch1 [Google Scholar]
  102. Horn, L. R. & Ward, G.
    eds. 2006Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959 [Google Scholar]
  103. Huang, Y.
    2007Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  105. 2005A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815515
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815515 [Google Scholar]
  106. Jäkel, O.
    1997Metaphern in abstrakten Diskurs-Domänen: Eine kognitiv-linguistische Untersuchung anhand der Bereiche Geistestätigkeit, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 1999 Kant, Blumenberg, Weinrich: Some forgotten contributions to the cognitive theory of metaphor. In: R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen , eds.Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory175). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 9–26. 10.1075/cilt.175.02jak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.02jak [Google Scholar]
  108. Janda, L.
    2013Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn: An Essential Reader. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110335255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255 [Google Scholar]
  109. Kahneman, D.
    2011Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Karttunen, L.
    1971 Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics5: 55–69. 10.1080/08351817109370248
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817109370248 [Google Scholar]
  111. Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C.
    1970 Fact. In: M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph , eds.Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–173. 10.1515/9783111350219.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111350219.143 [Google Scholar]
  112. König, E.
    1991The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Köpcke, K.-M. & Panther, K.-U.
    1989 On correlations between word order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics13: 685–711. 10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90074‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90074-X [Google Scholar]
  114. 2016 Analytische und gestalthafte Nomina auf -er im Deutschen vor dem Hintergrund konstruktionsgrammatischer Überlegungen. In: A. Bittner & C. Spieß , eds.Formen und Funktionen (Lingua Historica Germanica12). Berlin & Boston, 85–101. 10.1515/9783110478976‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110478976-006 [Google Scholar]
  115. Kövecses, Z.
    2005Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  116. 2010Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G.
    1998 Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics9: 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  118. Lakoff, G.
    1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  119. Lakoff, G.
    1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Ortony , ed.Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–251. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  120. 2008 The neural theory of metaphor. In: R. W. Gibbs , Jr., ed.The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–38. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003 [Google Scholar]
  121. 2016Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (3rd. ed.). Chicago & London: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226411323.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226411323.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  122. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 1999Philosophy In The Flesh: The Embodied Mind And Its Challenge To Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
    1989More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide To Poetic Metaphor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  125. Langacker, R.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford : Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 2000Grammar and Conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research14). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Langacker, R. W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  129. 2009a Metonymic grammar. In: K.-U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona , eds.Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 45–71. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  130. 2009bInvestigations in Cognitive Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  131. 2013Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Lausberg, H.
    1990Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Einführung für Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. 10th ed. Munich: Huber.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Leech, G.
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Levinson, S. C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  135. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  136. Lipton, P.
    2000 Inference to the best explanation. In: H. D. Newton-Smith ed.A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell: 184–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Littlemore, J.
    2015Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  138. Littlemore, J. & J. Taylor, J.
    2013The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Lodge, A.
    1998 Is French a logical language?In: L. Bauer & P. Trudgill , eds.Language Myths. London: Penguin Books, 23–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Maalej, Z. A. & Yu, N.
    eds. 2011Embodiment Via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures (Human Cognitive Processing31). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.31 [Google Scholar]
  141. Markert, K. & Hahn, U.
    2002 Understanding metonymies in discourse. Artificial Intelligence135: 145–198. 10.1016/S0004‑3702(01)00150‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00150-3 [Google Scholar]
  142. Mashal, N. & Faust, M.
    2008 Conventionalization of novel metaphors: a shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Ms., Bar-Ilan University.
  143. Mazzone, M.
    2018Cognitive Pragmatics: Mindreading, Consciousness, Inferences. Boston & Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501507731
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507731 [Google Scholar]
  144. Menninger, K.
    1969Number and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Morris, C. W.
    1938Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Murdoch, I.
    1999The Sea, the Sea. London: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Musolff, A.
    2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Newmeyer, F. J.
    1992 Iconicity and generative grammar. Language68: 756–796. 10.1353/lan.1992.0047
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0047 [Google Scholar]
  149. 1994 A note on Chomsky on form and function. Journal of Linguistics30: 245–251. 10.1017/S0022226700016248
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016248 [Google Scholar]
  150. Notley, F. E. M.
    1881In the House of a Friend. London: Ward, Lock & Co. Retrieved from: httspgoogle.books.com
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Nöth, W.
    1990Handbook of Semiotics. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv14npk46
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv14npk46 [Google Scholar]
  152. Ochs Keenan, E.
    1976 The universality of conversational postulates. Language in Society5: 67–80. 10.1017/S0047404500006850
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006850 [Google Scholar]
  153. Paavola, S.
    2005 Peircean abduction: Instinct or inference. Semiotica153–1/4: 131–154. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.153‑1‑4.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.153-1-4.131 [Google Scholar]
  154. Panther, K.-U.
    1981 Indirect speech act markers or why some linguistic signs are non-arbitrary. In: R. A. Hendricks ., eds.Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting: Chicago Linguistic Society, April 30 – May 1, 1981. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 295–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Panther, K.-U.
    1997 Dative alternation from a cognitive perspective. In: B. Smieja & M. Tasch , eds.Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 107–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 2006 Metonymy as a usage. In: G. Kristiansen , M. Achard , R. Dirven , & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza , eds.Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 147–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. 2008 Conceptual and pragmatic motivation as an explanatory concept in linguistics. Journal of Foreign Languages3.5: 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 2013 Motivation in language. In: S. Kreitler , ed.Cognition and Motivation: Forging an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 407–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Panther, K.-U.
    2014 Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive morphology and syntax. In: G. Drożdż & A. Łyda , eds.Extension and its Limits. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 10–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Panther, K.-U.
    2015 Metonymien im Sprachvergleich. In: C. Spieß & K.-M. Köpcke , eds.Metapher und Metonymie: Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge (Empirische Linguistik). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, 207–226. 10.1515/9783110369120.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110369120.207 [Google Scholar]
  161. 2016a ‘Quo vadimus?’ from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Chinese Semiotic Studies12.1: 93–116. 10.1515/css‑2016‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0007 [Google Scholar]
  162. 2016b How to encode and infer linguistic actions. Chinese Semiotic Studies12.2: 177–214. 10.1515/css‑2016‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0018 [Google Scholar]
  163. 2021 Motivation. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor , eds.The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 297–313. 10.4324/9781351034708‑20
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-20 [Google Scholar]
  164. Panther, K.-U. & Köpcke, K.-M.
    2008 A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6: 83–112. 10.1075/arcl.6.05pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.05pan [Google Scholar]
  165. Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G.
    eds. 1999Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  166. Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G.
    2011 Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In: K-U. Panther & G. Radden , eds.Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon (Human Cognitive Processing27). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 1–26. 10.1075/hcp.27.02pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.02pan [Google Scholar]
  167. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    1998 A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics30.6: 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  168. 1999 The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden , eds.Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  169. 2001 A conceptual analysis English -er nominals. In: M. Pütz , S. Niemeier , & R. Dirven , eds.Applied Cognitive Linguistic II: Language Pedagogy (Cognitive Linguistics Research19.2). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 149–200. 10.1515/9783110866254.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866254.149 [Google Scholar]
  170. Panther, K.-U & Thornburg, L. L.
    2002 The role of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In: R. Dirven & R. Pörings , eds.Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research20). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 279–319. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
  171. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    eds. 2003aMetonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series113). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113 [Google Scholar]
  172. Panther, K.-U. & L. L. Thornburg
    2003b Metonymies as natural inference schemas: The case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In: K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg , eds.Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series113). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 127–147. 10.1075/pbns.113.10pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.10pan [Google Scholar]
  173. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    2003c Metonymy and lexical aspect in English and French. Jezikoslovlje4.3: 71–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  174. 2005 Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive-linguistic approach. In: S. Marmaridou , K. Nikiforidou , & E. Antonopoulou , eds.Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs161). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–76. 10.1515/9783110920826.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920826.53 [Google Scholar]
  175. 2007 Metonymy. In: D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens , eds.The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  176. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg. L. L.
    2009a Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In: K.-U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona , eds.Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing25). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1–40. 10.1075/hcp.25.03pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.03pan [Google Scholar]
  177. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    2009b From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames1.1: 56–86. 10.1075/cf.1.1.04pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.1.04pan [Google Scholar]
  178. 2012a Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb particle constructions. Language Value4.1: 63–83. 10.6035/LanguageV.2012.4.4
    https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2012.4.4 [Google Scholar]
  179. 2012b Antonymy in language structure and use. In M. Brdar , I. Raffaelli , & M. Z. Fuchs . eds.Cognitive Linguistics Between Universality and Variation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 159–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  180. 2014 Metonymy and the way we speak. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada27.1: 168–186. 10.1075/resla.27.1.07pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.07pan [Google Scholar]
  181. 2017aMotivation and Inference: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  182. 2017b Metaphor and metonymy in language and thought. Synthesis Philosophica64.2: 271–294. 10.21464/sp32202
    https://doi.org/10.21464/sp32202 [Google Scholar]
  183. 2018 What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?In: O. Blanco Carrión , A. Barcelona , & R. Pannain , eds.Metonymy: Methodological, Theoretical, and Descriptive Issues (Human Cognitive Processing60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 121–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  184. 2019 Figurative reasoning in hedged performatives. In: M. Bolognesi , M. Brdar , & K. Despot , eds.Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theories and Methods for building repositories of Figurative Language (Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 175–198. 10.1075/milcc.8.08pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.8.08pan [Google Scholar]
  185. Panther, K.-U. , Thornburg, L. L. , & Barcelona, A.
    eds. 2009Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing25) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25 [Google Scholar]
  186. Paradis, C.
    2004 Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol19.4: 245–264. 10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_1 [Google Scholar]
  187. 2016 Corpus methods for the investigation of antonyms across languages. In: P. Juvonen & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm , eds.The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, 131.–156. 10.1515/9783110377675‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377675-005 [Google Scholar]
  188. Partridge, E.
    1966Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. London & New York. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  189. Pérez-Hernández, L.
    2021Speech Acts in English: From Research to Instruction and Tex
    [Google Scholar]
  190. Pople, H. E.
    1973 On the mechanization of abductive logic. Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 20–23 August 1973, Stanford University, Standford, CA, 147–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  191. Posner, R.
    1980 Semantics and pragmatics of sentence connectives in natural language. In: J. R. Searle , F. Kiefer , & M. Bierwisch , eds.Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Synthese Language Library10). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 169–203. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑8964‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8964-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  192. Postman, L. & Keppel, G.
    1970Norms of Word Association. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  193. Pustejovsky, J. & Bouillon, P.
    1995 Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics12: 133–162. 10.1093/jos/12.2.133
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.133 [Google Scholar]
  194. Predelli, S.
    2013Meaning without Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695638.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695638.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  195. Radden, G.
    2009 Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In: K.-U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona , eds.Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar (Human Cognitive Processing25). Benjamins: Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 199–228. 10.1075/hcp.25.13rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.13rad [Google Scholar]
  196. 2021 Iconicity. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor , eds.The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 268–296. 10.4324/9781351034708‑19
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-19 [Google Scholar]
  197. Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
    2007Cognitive English Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2.additional
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2.additional [Google Scholar]
  198. Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z.
    1999 Towards a theory of metonymy. In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden , eds.Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processing4). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 17–59. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  199. 2007 Towards a theory of metonymy. In: V. Evans , B. K. Bergen , & J. Zinken , eds.Cognitive Linguistics Reader (Advances in Cognitive Linguistics). London & Oakland, CA: Equinox, 335–359.
    [Google Scholar]
  200. Radden, G. & Panther, K.-U.
    2004 Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In: G. Radden & K.-U. Panther , eds.Studies in Linguistic Motivation (Cognitive Linguistics Research28). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  201. Radford, A.
    1988Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840425
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840425 [Google Scholar]
  202. Riemer, N.
    2002 When is metonymy no longer a metonymy?In: Pörings, R. & Dirven, R. , eds.Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research20). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–406. 10.1515/9783110219197.379
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.379 [Google Scholar]
  203. 2005The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Walpiri. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  204. Rivarol, A.
    1857Oeuvres de Rivarol: Études sur sa vie et son esprit par Sainte-Beuve, Arsène Housset, Armand Malitourne. Paris: Adolphe Delyhays.
    [Google Scholar]
  205. Ross, J. R.
    1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved fromhdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166.
    [Google Scholar]
  206. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    2000 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In: A. Barcelona , ed.Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (Topics in English Linguistics30). Berlin & New York: Mouton der Gruyter, 109–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  207. 2014 On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In: J. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor , eds.The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury, 143–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  208. 2021 Conceptual metonymy theory revisited: Some definitional and taxonomic issues. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor , eds.The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York & London: Routledge, 204–227. 10.4324/9781351034708‑15
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-15 [Google Scholar]
  209. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Otal Campo, J. L.
    2002Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Granada: Editorial Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
  210. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, L.
    2001 Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication21: 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  211. Sadock, J.
    1978 On testing for conversational implicature. In: P. Cole , ed.Pragmatics (Syntax and Pragmatics9). New York, etc.: Academic Press, 281–297. 10.1163/9789004368873_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_011 [Google Scholar]
  212. Saeed, J. I.
    2009Semantics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  213. Saussure, F. de.
    1959Course in General Linguistics. ( W. Baskin , Trans.) New York: Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1916)
    [Google Scholar]
  214. Saussure, F. de.
    1995 [1916]Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot
    [Google Scholar]
  215. Schmid, H.-J.
    2012 Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construction of meaning. In: H.-J. Schmid , ed.Handbook of Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3–22. 10.1515/9783110214215.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215.3 [Google Scholar]
  216. Searle, J. R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  217. 1971 What is a speech act?In: J. R. Searle, J. , ed.The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  218. 1972 Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. New York Review of Books. June29 1972.
    [Google Scholar]
  219. 1975 Indirect speech acts. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan , eds.Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics3). New York, etc.: Academic Press, 59–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  220. 1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society5: 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  221. 1979Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  222. 2002Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606366
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606366 [Google Scholar]
  223. Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D.
    1985Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  224. Sedley, D.
    2003Plato’s ‘Cratylus’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511482649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511482649 [Google Scholar]
  225. 2013 “Plato’s Cratylus”. In: E. N. Zalta , ed.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). [Accessed at: athttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/plato-cratylus].
    [Google Scholar]
  226. Senft, G.
    2014Understanding Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Language Use. London & New York. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203776476
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776476 [Google Scholar]
  227. Service, R. W.
    2008The Spell of the Yukon and Other Verses. [Retrieved fromwww.gutenberg.org. (EBook #207).
    [Google Scholar]
  228. Sharifian, F. , Dirven, R. , Yu, N. , & Niemeier, S.
    eds. 2008Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics7). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199109 [Google Scholar]
  229. Siemund, P.
    2018Speech Acts and Clause Types: English in a Cross-Linguistic Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  230. Skinner, B. F.
    1957Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 10.1037/11256‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/11256-000 [Google Scholar]
  231. Sobrino Pérez, P.
    2017Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising (Figurative Thought and Language2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  232. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
    1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  233. 2002 Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language17: 3–23. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00186
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186 [Google Scholar]
  234. Strawson, P.
    1952Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  235. Sweetser, E.
    1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  236. Talmy, L.
    2000aToward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  237. 200bToward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  238. Taylor, J.
    2002Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  239. 2003Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  240. Thagard, P.
    2007 Abductive inference: From philosophical analysis to neural mechanism. In: A. Feeney & E. Heit , eds.Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental and Computational Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  241. Thibodeau, P. H. & Boroditsky, L.
    2011 Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS One 6.2: e16782. [Retrieved from10.1371/journal.pone.0016782]
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  242. Thornburg, L. L. & Panther, K.-U.
    1997 Speech act metonymies. In: W.-A. Liebert , G. Redeker , & L. Waugh , eds.Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 205–219. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  243. Tomasello, M.
    2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  244. 2009Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8470.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8470.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  245. Tomlin, R. S.
    1986Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  246. Tóth, M.
    2018Linguistic Metonymy: Implicitness and Co-Activation of Mental Content. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b14806
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b14806 [Google Scholar]
  247. Traugott, E. C.
    2012 Pragmatics and language change. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt , eds.The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 549–565. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030 [Google Scholar]
  248. Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B.
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  249. Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.-J.
    2006An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Pearson & Longman: Harlow.
    [Google Scholar]
  250. Vallauri, E. L.
    2016 Insubordinated conditionals in spoken and non-spoken Italian. In: N. Evans & H. Watanabé , eds.Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language115). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 145–169. 10.1075/tsl.115.06val
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.06val [Google Scholar]
  251. Vanderveken, D.
    2004 Success, satisfaction, and truth in the logic of speech acts and formal semantics. In: S. Davis & B. S. Gillon , eds.Semantics: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 710–734.
    [Google Scholar]
  252. Vendler, Z.
    1957 Verbs and times. Philosophical Review66.2: 143–160. 10.2307/2182371
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371 [Google Scholar]
  253. Verschueren, J.
    1999Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  254. Verspoor, M. & de Bie-Kerékjártó, A.
    2006 Colorful bits of experience: From bluestocking to blue movie. English Studies87.1: 78–98. 10.1080/00138380500490819
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138380500490819 [Google Scholar]
  255. Voßhagen, C.
    1999 Opposition as a metonymic principle: In: K.-U. Panther & G. Radden , eds.Metonymy in Language and Thought (Human Cognitive Processes 4. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, 289–308. 10.1075/hcp.4.17vos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.17vos [Google Scholar]
  256. Wachowski, W.
    2019Towards a Better Understanding of Metonymy (Literary and Cultural Stylistics44). Oxford: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b13365
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b13365 [Google Scholar]
  257. Wehling, E.
    2016Politisches Framing: Wie eine Nation sich ihr Denken einrichtet – und daraus Politik macht. Köln: Halem.
    [Google Scholar]
  258. Wierzbicka. A.
    1985 Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics9: 145–178. 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90023‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90023-2 [Google Scholar]
  259. Wilson, D.
    2005 New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. In: S. Marmaridou , K. Nikiforidou , E. Antonopoulou , eds.Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21th Century. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 375–400. 10.1515/9783110920826.375
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920826.375 [Google Scholar]
  260. Wittgenstein, L.
    2009Philosophical Investigations ( G. Anscombe , P. Hacker , & J. Schulte , Trans.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  261. Wunderlich, D.
    1976Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  262. Ziem, A.
    2014Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse: Theoretical Foundations and Descriptive Applications (Human Cognitive Processing48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.48 [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
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