On Some Pragmatic Effects of Event Metonymies

References

• Al-Sharafi, A. (2004). Textual metonymy: A semiotic approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barcelona, A. (ed.). (2000a). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Barcelona, A. (2000b). On the plausibility of claiming metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 22–58). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bergh, G. (2005). Min(d)ing English language data on the Web: What can Google tell us? ICAME Journal, 29, 25–46.
   Google Scholar
• Bergh, G., & Zanchetta, E. (2008). Web linguistics. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 309–327). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bierwiaczonek, B. (2007). Synonymy reactivated. Linguistica Silesiana, 28, 7–21.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2003). Metonymic coding of linguistic action in English, Croatian and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2004). On metonymic profiling in alternate construal of complex event chains in verbal idioms. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & A. Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Imagery in language. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker (pp. 247–258). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar, M. (2007). How to do a couple of things with metonymy. In P. Cap & J. Nijakowska (Eds.), Current Trends in Pragmatics (pp. 2–32). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2011). Metonymy, metaphor and the “weekend frame of mind”: Towards motivating the micro-variation in the use of one type of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in Grammar and the Lexicon (pp. 233–250). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar, M. (2015). Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia, 27(2), 257–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 313–340. doi:10.1515/cog-2014-0013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2002). Manner-for-activity metonymy in a cross-linguistic perspective. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Today (pp. 225–246). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar-Szabó, R., Brdar, M., & Jakobović, L. (2009). Distance, proximity and metonymies in English, Croatian and Hungarian daily newspapers. In M. Brdar, M. Omazić, B. Belaj, & K. Branko (Eds.), Lingvistika javne komunikacije: Sociokulturni, pragmatički i stilistički aspekti (pp. 155–164). Osijek, Croatia: Hrvatsko društvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku – Filozofski fakultet Sveučiišta Josipa Jurja Strossmayera.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2017). Doing Tsukahara and the Epley in a cross-linguistic perspective. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo Oyón, & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp. 77–107). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2003). The MANNER FOR ACTIVITY metonymy across domains and languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 43–69.
   Google Scholar
• Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2002). Humor through ‘double grounding’: Structural interaction of optimality principles. In A. Hougaard & S. N. Lund (Eds.), The way we think (pp. 313–336). Odense, Denmark: Syddansk Universitets Trykkeri.
   Google Scholar
• Brône, G., & Feyaerts, K. (2003, July 20–25). The cognitive linguistics of incongruity resolution: Marked reference-point structures in humor. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, Spain. Retrieved from http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/iclc/Papers/BroneFeyaerts.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. (2013). Exemplars and constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coulson, S. (2005). What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology, 2(3), 67–78.
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, A. (1997). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford, : Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of Linguistic processing. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• DiMarco, C., Graeme, H., & Manfred, S. (1993). The semantic and stylistic differentiation of synonyms and near-synonyms. AAAI Spring Symposium on Building Lexicons for Machine Translation, 1, 114–121.
   Google Scholar
• Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 275–287). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzálvez-García, F., & Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96. doi:10.1075/arcl.4.04gon
   Google Scholar
• Gonzálvez-García, F., Peña, S., & Pérez, L. (Eds.). (2011). Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the contemporary theory of metaphor. Recent developments and applications. In Special issue of the Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1).Reedited in 2013, in Benjamins Current Topics, 56. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
   Google Scholar
• Goossens, L. (2002). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–377). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Herrero-Ruiz, J. (2018). Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and CAUSE FOR EFFECT/EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymies. Language & Communication, 62 (part A), 51–65. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2018.07.001
   Google Scholar
• Kilgarriff, A., & Grefenstette, G. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 333–347. doi:10.1162/089120103322711569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosecki, K. (2007). On multiple metonymies within indirect speech acts. Research in Language, 5(1), 213–219. doi:10.2478/v10015-007-0010-6
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion Concepts. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2002/2010). Metaphor. A Practical Introduction (2010. 2nd, revised ed.). New York, USA: 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. doi:10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyratzis, S. (2003, July 20–25). Laughing metaphorically: Metaphor and humour in discourse. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, Spain. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.132.9689&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1989). Some empirical results about the nature of concepts. Mind and Language, 4(1–2), 103–129. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00244.x
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   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 (pp. 91–123). Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York, USA: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Littlemore, J., & Tagg, C. (2018). Metonymy and text messaging: A framework for understanding creative uses of metonymy. Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 481–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. (1981). Language and Linguistics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martines, J. (2015). Diacronia i neologia: Canvi semàntic, subjectivació i representació del pensament. El català esmar, des de ‘taxar’ fins a ‘inferir’ i ‘imaginar’ i més enllà. Caplletra, 59, 221–248.
   Google Scholar
• Moritz, I. (2018). Metonymy-based euphemisms in war-related speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In A. Pizzuto Pedraza (Ed.), Linguistic taboo revisited: Novel insights from cognitive perspectives (pp. 55–78). Berlin-Boston, Germany-USA: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (1997). Speech Act Metonymies. In N.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205–219). Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755–769. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (eds.). (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (eds.). (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pauwels, P. (1999). Putting metonymy in its place. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 255–273). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in Indirect Directive Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34/3(3), 259–284. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Radden, G. (2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. L. Otal, I. Navarro, & B. Bellés (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castellón, Spain: Universitat Jaume I.
   Google Scholar
• Radden, G. (2008, September 25–27). Generic reference: An instance of the INSTANCE FOR TYPE metonymy. Paper given at Third Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Leizpig, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Radden, G. (2013, June 23–28). Event metonymies. Paper given at 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Alberta. Retrieved from https://sites.ualberta.ca/~iclc2013/ABSTRACTS/Radden.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Renouf, A. (2003). WebCorp: Providing a renewable data source for corpus linguists. In S. Granger & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research: New applications, new challenges (pp. 39–58). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, D. L., & Dyhouse, V. (2008). Hair of the frog and other empty metaphors: The play element in figurative language. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(2), 85–107. doi:10.1080/10926480801944251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997a). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis, 19, 281–295.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997b). Some notes on the translation of Spanish -ito/-illo diminutives into English. Pragmalingüística, 3–4, 155–172.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999a). Implicatures, explicatures, and conceptual mappings. In J. L. Cifuentes (Ed.), Estudios de Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 429–440). Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999b). The role of cognitive mechanisms in making inferences. Journal of English Studies, 1, 237–255. doi:10.18172/jes.50
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2020). The metonymic exploitation of descriptive, attitudinal, and regulatory scenarios in meaning making. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 283–308). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphorical and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. doi:10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 161–185. doi:10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schönefeld, D. (2011). Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1975). A Taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1979). Referential and Attributive. In J. R. Searle (Ed.), Expression and meaning (pp. 137–161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 413–441). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1984). The Pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 189–195. doi:10.1093/applin/5.3.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tóth, M. (2015). Preliminaries to a content-based classification of metonymy. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 25(2), 119–150.
   Google Scholar
• Tóth, M. (2018). Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Vosshagen, C. (1999). Opposition as a metonymic principle. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 289–308). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, B. (2006). Referential metonymy (Scripta Minora Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis). Lund, Sweden: Kungliga Humanistiska vetenskapssamfundet. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/4481558/1270220.pdf
   Google Scholar