Review of Panther (2022): Introduction to Cognitive Pragmatics

References

1. Bambini, V., Van Looy, L., Demiddele, K., & Schaeken, W.
   (2021) What is the contribution of executive functions to communicative-pragmatic skills? Insights from aging and different types of pragmatic inference. Cognitive Processing, 22(3), 435–452. 10.1007/s10339‑021‑01021‑w
   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-021-01021-w [Google Scholar]
2. Bara, B. G.
   (2010) Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication (J. Douthwaite, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014113.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014113.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
3. Barcelona, A.
   (2003) On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barceloca (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.31
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.31 [Google Scholar]
4. Barcelona, A.
   (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. InRuiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.4.313
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.4.313 [Google Scholar]
5. Cutica, I., Bucciarelli, M., & Bara, B. G.
   (2006) Neuropragmatics: Extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 98(1), 12–25. 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.01.001 [Google Scholar]
6. Gabbatore, I., Sacco, K., Angeleri, R., Zettin, M., Bara, B. G., & Bosco, F. M.
   (2015) Cognitive pragmatic treatment: A rehabilitative program for traumatic brain injury individuals. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 30(5), E14–28. 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000087
   https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000087 [Google Scholar]
7. Geeraerts, D.
   (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Goddard, C.
   (2006) Ethopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110911114
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911114 [Google Scholar]
9. Haugh, M., Kádár, D. Z., & Terkourafi, M.
   (2021) Introduction: directions in sociopragmatics. InM. Haugh, D. Z. Kádár & M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics (pp.1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954105.001
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954105.001 [Google Scholar]
10. Kecskes, I.
    (2014) Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Langacker, R. W.
    (2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Mey, J. L., Haberland, H., & Fisher, K.
    (2010) Editorial. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 1–8. 10.1075/ps.1.1.01edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.01edi [Google Scholar]
14. Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G.
    (2011) Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.27.02pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.02pan [Google Scholar]
15. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. 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]
16. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2017) Metaphor and metonymy in language and thought: A cognitive linguistic approach. Synthesis Philosophica, 32(2), 271–294. 10.21464/sp32202
    https://doi.org/10.21464/sp32202 [Google Scholar]
18. Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.05pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.05pan [Google Scholar]
19. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2012) Cognitive pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215 [Google Scholar]
20. Thornburg, L. L., & Panther, K.-U.
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. InW.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
21. Wen, X.
    (2019) 基于“社会认知”的社会认知语言学 [Sociocognitive linguistics based on social cognition]. Modern Foreign Languages, 42(3), 293–305.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
23. Zappavigna, M.
    (2012) Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the Web. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Zhu, X.-F., & He, G.
    (2018) 文化语用研究的三种范式及其相互关系 [Three paradigms in culturally-oriented pragmatics and their interrelationship]. Journal of Northeastern University (Social Science), 20(5), 539–544.
    [Google Scholar]