Barcelona, A. 2002. "On the Ubiquity and Multiple-Level Operation of Metonymy". In: Lewandowska - Tomaszczyk B. and K. Turewicz (eds), 247-259.
Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds). 2003. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fass, D. C. 1997. Processing Metaphor and Metonymy. Greenwich, Conn. and London: Ablex.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Figurative Thought, Language, and
, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28 (3), 547–563. doi: 10.1348/026151009X454373
Siqueira, M., & Gibbs, R. (2007). Children’s Acquisition of Primary Metaphors: a crosslinguistic study. Organon, 21 (43), 161-179.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The Persuasive Effects of Metaphor a Meta-Analysis. Human Communication Research, 28 (1), 382-419. doi: 10.1093/hcr/28.3.382
Ullmann, S. (1967). The Principles
Barcelona, Antonio (2003). Names: A metonymic ‘return ticket’ in five languages. Jezikoslovlje 4.1: 11-41
Barcelona, Antonio (2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. Alm-Arvius, Christina, Nils-Lennart Johannesson, David C. Minugh, eds. Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival . Stockholm: Stockholm UP, 1-40.
Berberović, Sanja (2009). Would you like to be the Michael Jordan of linguistics? Construction of figurative meaning of personal names. Brdar
Aristotle. De sensu and De memoria , [In: G. R. T. Ross, 1906. Text and translation, with introduction and commentary]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atlas, J. D., 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation: Semantical underdeterminacy, implicature, and their interface . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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
Akbari, Mohammad-Reza. 1991. Tabiire Xabe Moaberane Iranii va Ghere Irani . Tehran: Ordibehesht.
Al-Suhrawardi, Shihab al-Din. 2001. Hikmat al-Ishraq. Tehran: Hekmat.
Ebne Sirin, M. 2002. Dream Interpretation. Qom: Lahiji.
Freeman, Margaret. 2003. Poetry and the Scope of Metaphor: Toward a Cognitive Theory of Literature. – Metaphor and Metonymy at the Cross-Road: A Cognitive Perspective , edited by Antonio Barcelona. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 253–281.
Freud, Sigmund. 2010 . The Interpretation of Dreams
, pp. 32-47.
GIBBS, R., 1994. Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In: K. Panther and G. Radden, eds. Metonymy in language and thought. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 61-76.
HAMDAN, J., 1994. Language transfer and the acquisition of the English dative alternation by native speakers of Arabic. Unpublished, PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK.
KÖVECSES, Z., 2010. Metaphor and culture. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Philologica, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 197-220.
KÖVECSES, Z. and SZABÓ, P., 1996. Idioms: A
BARCELONA, A., 1986. On the concept of depression in American English: A cognitive approach. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, no. 12, pp. 7-35.
CASASANTO, D. and DIJKSTRA, K., 2010. Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 179-185.
CROFT, W., 2003. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In: R. Dirven and R. Pörings, eds. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 161
coherence relations. In: Discourse Processes, 1994, Vol. 18, No 2, pp. 5 – 62.
OCHS, Elinor: Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In: Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Eds. J. Gumperz – S. C. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996, pp. 407 – 437.
ÖSTMAN, JanOla: Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In: Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference. Eds. B. Wårvik – S.K. Tanskanen – R. Hiltunen. Turku: University of Turku 1995, pp. 95 – 108.
PANTHER, KlausUwe – THORNBURG, Linda L.: Metonymies as natural
For decades now, we are talking about that in science in general, and in linguistics in particular a structuralist paradigm is naturally complemented with an anthropocentric paradigm – with its inherent attention to human cognitive structures. Following the question “how?” we more and more often ask the question “why?”. This is a logical way of development of human thought in the process of cognition of reality: first, based on the differential and integral signs, organize, and then wonder why the system looks exactly the way it looks, with its tendentiousness and illogicalities. The aim of the article is to study the correlation between lexical phenomena of metonymy and metaphor and cognitive structure of perception. This study is in line with a new scientific approach proposed by evolutionary epistemology: cognitive and evolutionary. This approach implies increased attention to human perception and logic in their evolution. Based on the information of anthroponimic sciences related to linguistics about degrees of perception and logics quality, this approach allows to see the deep reasons of phenomena being studied.
The subject of this article is the extensive use of metalepsis as an argumentative and rhetorical device in media discourse, and in particular in advertising. Metalepsis, a form of metonymy, sets up an inverted relation – causal, logical or contiguous – between terms and/or objects, either as an aesthetic effect or a means of persuasion. The first part of the article discusses the use of metalepsis in literature and film; the second part discusses the use of the figure in mass media and advertising; the third part discusses the relation between advertising, art, and popular culture. The final part of the article discusses the pervasive use metalepsis in advertising. Since metalepsis is a powerful rhetorical device, I have chosen the figure of the tiger to illustrate how it operates in advertising and media discourse.