Grammatical metonymy and construal operations

References

1. Barcelona, A.
   (2003) Names: A metonymic “return ticket” in five languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 11–41.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barcelona, A.
   (2004) Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. InG. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.321–355.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bierwiaczonek, B.
   (2013) Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bierwiaczonek, B.
   (2018) How metonymy motivates constructions. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.185–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.07bie
   https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.07bie [Google Scholar]
5. Bierwiaczonek, B.
   (2020) Figures of speech revisited: Introducing syntonymy and syntaphor. InA. Baicchi, (Ed.) Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language (pp.225–251). Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.10bie
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.10bie [Google Scholar]
6. Brdar, M.
   (2002–2003) Metonymic motivation in English grammar: The case of the tense aspect-mood system. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 47–58(37–50), 37–49.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Brdar, M.
   (2005) Ways of getting around and signalling metonymy in the grammar of noun phrases. Bosanski Jezik, 4, 39–61.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Brdar, M.
   (2007) Metonymy in grammar: Towards motivating extensions of grammatical categories and constructions. Osijek: Faculty of Philosophy. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R.
   (2009) When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. InG. 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]
10. Brdar-Szabó, R.
    (2016) Metonymische Kompetenz und Grammatikerwerb. InI. Feld-Knapp (Ed.), Grammatik (pp.92–127). Budapest: ELTE Eötvös József Collegium.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
12. Dehaene, S.
    (2001) Précis of the number sense. Mind & Language, 16, 16–36. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00154
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00154 [Google Scholar]
13. Drożdż, G.
    (2017) The puzzle of un(countability) in English: A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: University of Silesia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Gradečak-Erdeljić, T.
    (2004) Metonymy and grammatical recategorisation of nouns. InD. Kučanda, M. Brdar & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th Birthday (pp.347–358). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Koch, P.
    (1999) Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.139–167). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.09koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc [Google Scholar]
18. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view, Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
19. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Langacker, R.
    (2008) Cognitive 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]
21. Langacker, R.
    (2009a) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
22. Langacker, R.
    (2009b) Metonymic grammar. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
23. Langacker, R.
    (2017) Grounding, semantic functions, and absolute quantifiers. Text Construction, 10(2), 233–248. 10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.2.03lan [Google Scholar]
24. 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]
25. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
    (1999) Synecdoche as a Cognitive and Communicative Strategy. InA. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, (pp.197–213). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804195.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.197 [Google Scholar]
26. Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G.
    (Eds.) (1999), Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4. 10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
27. Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2002) The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.280–319) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
28. Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I.
    (2017) The proper name Misiewicz as nomen appellativum in the current political discourse in Poland, Acta Neophilologica, XIX(2), 65–76.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Paszenda, J., & Góralczyk, I.
    (2018) Metonymic motivations behind paragonic uses of proper names in political discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach, Linguistica Silesiana, 39, 211–235.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Peirsman, Y., & Geererts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
31. Radden, G.
    (2009) Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.199–228). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.13rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.13rad [Google Scholar]
32. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modelling: A linguistic perspective, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
33. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L.
    (2002) Metonymy, grammar and communication. Alblote: Comares.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. & Pérez Hernández, 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]
35. Seto, K.
    (1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, (pp.99–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.06set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set [Google Scholar]
36. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Waltereit, R.
    (1999) Grammatical constraints on metonymy: On the role of the direct object. InK.-U. Panther & Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.233–253). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.14wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.14wal [Google Scholar]
38. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1985) Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. InJ. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp.311–342). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.16wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.16wie [Google Scholar]
39. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]