Metonymy and frame integration: Interfacing between concepts and discourse

Aristotle. De sensu and De memoria, [In: G. R. T. Ross, 1906. Text and translation, with introduction and commentary]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Atlas, J. D., 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and their interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Barcelona, A., 2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings, eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, [Cognitive Linguistic Research 20]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 207-279.10.1515/9783110219197.2.207Search in Google Scholar

Barcelona, A., 2003. Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In: H. Cuyckens, Th. Berg, R. Dirven and K. U. Panther, eds. Motivation in language. Studies in honour of Gunter Radden. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 223–55.10.1075/cilt.243.15barSearch in Google Scholar

Benczes, R. et al., eds. 2011. Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.28Search in Google Scholar

Burzio, L., 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, B., 2013. Ergativity: Some recurrent themes. In: E. L. Bavin and S. Stoll, eds. The acquisition of ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15-34.10.1075/tilar.9.02comSearch in Google Scholar

Clausner, T. C. and Croft, W., 1999. Domains and image-schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 1-31.10.1515/cogl.1999.001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, W., 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 4, pp. 335-370.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Denroche, C., 2015. Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge Studies in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Dirven, R., 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of basic event schemata. In: K.U. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 275-287.10.1075/hcp.4.16dirSearch in Google Scholar

Esser, J., 2009. Introduction to English text-linguistics. Berlin: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G., 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M., 2002. The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M., 2008. Rethinking metaphor. In: W. Raymond and J. Gibbs, eds. The Cambridge handbook of etaphor and hought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, C., 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In: A. Zampolli, ed. Linguistics structures processing. Amsterdam and New York: North Holland Publishing Company, pp. 51-81.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, C., 1982. Frame semantics. In: Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea. Soeul: Hanshin, pp. 111-137.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, G., 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 222-254.Search in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, D., 2018. Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: Brill.10.1163/9789004336841Search in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, D., 2006. Words and other wonders. Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219128Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, D., 2006. Conceptual metonymy – A study in cognitive models, reference-points, and domain boundaries, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, vol. 42, pp. 85-102.Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, D. 2014. Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In: D. Glynn and J. Robinson, eds. Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 7-38.10.1075/hcp.43.01glySearch in Google Scholar

Halmari, H. and Östman, J.O., 2001. The soft-spoken, Angelic Pickax Killer: The notion of discourse pattern in controversial news reporting. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 33, pp. 805-823.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80030-8Search in Google Scholar

Handl, S., 2012. From FOR to AND: Metonymic underspecification as a test case for linguistic theory. Paper presented at the 9th conference of the International Association Researching and Applying Metaphor. Lancaster, United Kingdom, 4-7 July.Search in Google Scholar

Holenstein, E., 1975. Roman Jakobsons phänomenologische Strukturalismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, [Eng. trans., Roman Jakobson’ sapproach to language:Phenomenological structuralism. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976].Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R., 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Koch, P., 1999. Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In: K. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139-167.10.1075/hcp.4.09kocSearch in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z., 2006. Language, mind and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z., 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z., and Radden, G., 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 37-77.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and Turner, M., 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R., 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. In: M. Tomasello, ed. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlba, pp. 1-39.10.4324/9781315085678-1Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W., 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W., 2009. Metonymic grammar. In: K. Panther et al., eds. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar [Human Cognitive Processing 25]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 45–71.10.1075/hcp.25.04lanSearch in Google Scholar

Littlemore, J., 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107338814Search in Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y., 2010. Interactional frame and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. In: M. Fried and K. Nikiforidou, eds. Advances in frame semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Minsky, M., 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: P. H. Winston, ed. The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211-277.Search in Google Scholar

Nikiforidou, K., 2005. Conceptual blending and the interpretation of relatives: A case study from Greek. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 169-206.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.169Search in Google Scholar

Nunberg G., 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar

Nunberg, G., 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 3, pp. 143-184.10.1007/BF00126509Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Ostman, J-O., 2005. Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In: J.O. Ostman and M. Fried, eds. Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121-144.10.1075/cal.3.06ostSearch in Google Scholar

Panther, K. and Radden, G., 1999. Introduction. In: K. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-14.10.1075/hop.9.met4Search in Google Scholar

Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. L., 2003. Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In: K.U.Panther and L. L. Thornburg, eds. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-20.10.1075/pbns.113.03panSearch in Google Scholar

Panther, K.U., Thornburg, L. L. and Barcelona, A., eds., 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.25Search in Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, J., 1993. Type coercion and lexical selection. In: J. Pustejovsky, ed. Semantics and the lexicon. Cordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73-94.10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_6Search in Google Scholar

Seto, K., 1999. Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In: K.U. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91-120.10.1075/hcp.4.06setSearch in Google Scholar

Ullmann, S., 1962. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell & Mott Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, J., 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar

Warren, B., 2006. Referential metonymy. Scripta Minora of the Royal Society of Letters at Lund 2003-2004, vol.1. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Search in Google Scholar

Whitsitt, S., 2013. Metonymy, synecdoche, and the disorders of contiguity. Italy: LibreriaUniversitaria.it edizioni.Search in Google Scholar