The role of metonymy in naming

References

1. Barcelona, A.
   (2003a) Introduction. The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.1
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.1 [Google Scholar]
2. Barcelona, A.
   (2003b) On the possibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for a conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.31
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.31 [Google Scholar]
3. Barcelona, A.
   (2008) The interaction of metonymy and metaphor in the meaning and form of “bahuvrihi” compounds. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 208–281. 10.1075/arcl.6.10bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.10bar [Google Scholar]
4. Barcelona, A.
   (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp.7–58). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
5. Basilio, M.
   (2006) Metaphor and metonymy in word-formation. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 221, 67–80. 10.1590/S0102‑44502006000300006
   https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502006000300006 [Google Scholar]
6. Bauer, L.
   (2017) Metonymy and the semantics of word-formation. Proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meetings, 111, 1–13.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Benczes, R.
   (2006) Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical noun-noun combinations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19
   https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.19 [Google Scholar]
8. Booij, G.
   (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Brdar, M.
   (2017) Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Croft, W.
    (2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.161 [Google Scholar]
11. Desfayes, M.
    (1998) A thesaurus of bird names: Etymology of European lexis through paradigms. Sion: Musée cantonal dhistoire naturelle et La Murithienne.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dirven, R.
    (1999) Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. InK. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.275–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.16dir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.16dir [Google Scholar]
13. Dokulil, M.
    (1962) Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČAV.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Gosler, A.
    (2019) What’s in a name? The legacy and lexicon of birds. British Wildlife, 30(6), 391–397.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Grzega, J.
    (2005) Onomasiologial approach to word-formation. A comment on Pavol Štekauer: Onomasiological approach to word-formation. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 21, 76–80.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Grzega, J.
    (2007) Summary, supplement and index for Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel, 2004. Onomasiology Online, 81, 18–196.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Gutiérrez Rubio, E.
    (2021) Metonymy in Spanish word formation. InA. Fábregas, V. Acedo-Matellán, G. Armstrong, M. C. Cuervo & I. Pujol Payet (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish morphology (pp.399–415). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429318191‑31
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318191-31 [Google Scholar]
18. Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D.
    (2010) Understanding morphology. London: Hodder Education.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
20. Janda, L. A.
    (2011) Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(2), 359–392. 10.1515/cogl.2011.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.014 [Google Scholar]
21. Koch, P.
    (2001) Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21, 201–244. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.03koc [Google Scholar]
22. 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]
23. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, 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]
24. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
25. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (2003) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
26. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987 / 1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Langacker, R. W.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
28. Levinson, S., & Majid, A.
    (2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. 10.1111/mila.12057
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057 [Google Scholar]
29. Lipka, L.
    (2006) Naming Units (NUs), Observational Linguistics and Reference as a Speech Act or What’s in a Name. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 30–39.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Mathesius, V.
    (1975) A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis (Ed.Vachek, J.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110813296
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813296 [Google Scholar]
31. Nesset, T.
    (2010) The art of being negative: Metonymical morphological constructions in contrast. Oslo Studies in Language, 21, 261–279. 10.5617/osla.55
    https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.55 [Google Scholar]
32. Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2000) A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. Essen: LAUD.
    [Google Scholar]
33. 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.279–319). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.279 [Google Scholar]
34. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
35. Radden, G., & Panther, K. U.
    (2004) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. InG. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Štekauer, P.
    (2001) Fundamental principles of an onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Onomasiology Online, 21, 15–54.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Williams, W.
    (1906) Maori bird names. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 15(4), 193–208.
    [Google Scholar]