Combining Metaphors: From Metaphoric Amalgams to Binary Systems

References

• Boas H 2003 A Constructional approach to resultatives Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Barcelona A 1995 ‘Metaphorical models or romantic love in Romeo and Juliet’ Journal of Pragmatics 24(6): 667–688. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00007-F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauconnier G & M Turner 2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier G 2005 ‘Compression and emergent structure’ Language and Linguistics 6(4): 523–528.
   Google Scholar
• Geeraerts D 2003 ‘The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions’ in R Dirven & R Pörings (eds) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 435–465.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg A & R Jackendoff 2004 ‘The English resultative as a family of constructions’ Language 80(3): 532–568. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens L 1990 ‘Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action’ Cognitive Linguistics 1(3): 323–342. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
   Google Scholar
• Goossens L 2003 ‘Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action [revised version]’ in R Dirven & R Pörings (eds) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 349–378.
   Google Scholar
• Grady JE 1997 Foundations of meaning. primary metaphors and primary scenes Unpublished PhD, Dissertation at the University of California at Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Grady J 1999 ‘A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance’ in RW Gibbs & G Steen (eds) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 79–100.
   Google Scholar
• Grady JE 2005 ‘Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration’ Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1595–1614. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyvaert L 2003 A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson M 1987 The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason The Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses Z 1990 Emotion concepts New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 153–154.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses Z 2010 Metaphor: a practical introduction Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses Z 2011 ‘Recent developments in metaphor theory. Are the new views rival ones?’ Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 11–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 1993 ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’ in A Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and thought 2nd edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202–251.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 1996 ‘Sorry, I’m not myself today: the metaphor system for conceptualizing the Self’ in G Fauconnier & E Sweetser (eds) Spaces, worlds, and grammar Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 91–123.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G 2003 ‘The embodied mind and how to live with one’ in A Sanford (ed.) The nature and limits of human understanding London & New York: T&T Clark. pp. 47–108.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G & M Johnson 1980 Metaphors we live by Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G & M Johnson 1999 Philosophy in the flesh New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G & M Turner 1989 More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff G et al 1991 Master metaphor list California: University of California at Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B 1993 English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levin B & M Rappaport Hovav 2005 Argument realization, research surveys in linguistics series Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oakley T & E Pascual 2017 ‘Conceptual blending theory’ in B Dancygier (ed.) The cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 423–448.
   Google Scholar
• Peña MS 2008 ‘Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language’ Journal of Pragmatics 40(6): 1041–1066. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peña MS 2015 ‘A constructionist approach to causative frighten verbs’ Linguistics 53(6): 1247–1302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peña MS 2016 ‘Cognitive mechanisms underlying fake reflexive resultatives’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 36(4): 502–541. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2016.1169975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peña MS & FJ Ruiz de Mendoza 2009 ‘Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations’ in K-U Panther, L Thornburg & A Barcelona (eds) Metonymy and metaphor in grammar Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 339–361.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez-Hernández L & K Duvignau 2016 ‘Metaphor, metonymy, and their interaction in the production of semantic approximations by monolingual children: A corpus analysis’ First Language 36(4): 383–406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723716648845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Hernández L & FJ Ruiz de Mendoza 2002 ‘Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts’ Journal of Pragmatics 34: 259–284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez-Sobrino P 2016 ‘Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: a corpus-based account’ Metaphor & Symbol 31(2): 73–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postal P 2010 Edge-based clausal syntax: a study of (mostly) English object structure Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radden G 2000 ‘How metonymic are metaphors?’ in A Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 93–108.
   Google Scholar
• Radden G & R Dirven 2007 Cognitive English grammar Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing House.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2000 ‘The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy’ in A Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 109–132.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2007 ‘High-level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior’ in K Kosecki (ed) Perspectives on metonymy Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp. 11–30.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2011 ‘Metonymy and cognitive operations’ in R Benczes, A Barcelona & FJ Ruiz de Mendoza (eds) Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. towards a consensus view Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 103–123.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2013 ‘Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the lexical constructional Model’ in B Nolan & E Diedrichsen (eds) Linking constructions into functional linguistics: the role of constructions in grammar Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 231–270.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2014 ‘On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies’ in J Littlemore & J Taylor (eds) Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics London: Bloomsbury. pp. 143–166.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ 2017 ‘Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: from basicity to complexity’ in B Hampe (ed.) Metaphor: embodied cognition, and discourse Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 138–159.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & O Díez 2002 ‘Patterns of conceptual interaction’ in R Dirven, & R Pörings (eds) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 489–532.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & A Galera-Masegosa 2011 ‘Going beyond metaphtonymy: metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation’ Language Value 3(1): 1–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & A Galera-Masegosa 2012 ‘Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: metaphoric chains’ in B Eizaga (ed.) Studies in linguistics and cognition Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag. pp. 157–185.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & A Galera-Masegosa 2014 Cognitive Modeling. A Linguistic Perspective Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp 85–166.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & R Mairal 2011 ‘Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical constructional Model’ in P Guerrero (ed) Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives London & Oakville: Equinox. pp. 62–82.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & S Peña 2008 ‘Grammatical metonymy within the ‘action’ frame in English and Spanish’ in MA Gómez González, J Lachlan Mackenzie & EM González-Álvarez (eds) Current trends in contrastive linguistics: functional and cognitive perspectives Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 251–280.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza FJ & L Pérez 2011 ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor: myths, developments and challenges’ Metaphor and Symbol 26: 161–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson J 1983 ‘Resultatives’ in L Levin, M Rappaport & A Zaenen (eds) Papers in lexical-functional grammar Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. pp. 143–158.
   Google Scholar
• Talmy L 1988 ‘Force dynamics in language and cognition’ Cognitive Science 12: 49–100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar