E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.). The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction

References

1. Cooren, F.
   (2010) Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.6
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.6 [Google Scholar]
2. Cooren, F.
   (2012) Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 1–20. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2011.01622.x
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01622.x [Google Scholar]
3. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
   (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 2(1), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
   https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
4. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
   (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Goffman, E.
   (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Goffman, E.
   (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Koven, M.
   (2002) An analysis of speaker role inhabitance in narratives of personal experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 167–217. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80010‑8.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80010-8 [Google Scholar]
8. Langacker, R. W.
   (1999) Virtual reality. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77–103.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Oakley, T., & Pascual, E.
   (2017) Conceptual blending theory. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.423–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.027
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.027 [Google Scholar]
10. Pascual, E.
    (2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Pascual, E.
    (2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
12. Pascual, E.
    (2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
13. Talmy, L.
    (1996/2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, vol.1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Zlatev, J.
    (2007) Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica, 2–3(46–47), 123–152.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E.
    (Eds.) (2008) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12 [Google Scholar]