Figuring out Figuration: A cognitive linguistic account

Referencias bibliográficas

• Al-Hindawi, F. H. H., & Kadhim, B. J. (2017). A pragmatic study of irony in political electoral speeches. In F. H. H. Al-Hindawi, & W. R. Al-Juwaid (Eds.), Pragmatic analysis of political data (pp. 260-309). Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.
• Alba-Juez, L., & Attardo, S. (2014). The evaluative palette of verbal irony. In G. Thomson, & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp. 93-116). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.05alb
• Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F. (2013). Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition. WIREs Cogn Sci, 4(2),149-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1215
• Anderson, J. R. (2010). Cognitive Psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
• Ariel, M. (2002). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 361-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00043-1
• Athanasiadou, A. (Ed.). (2017). Studies in figurative thought and language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56
• Athanasiadou, A., & Colston, H. L. (Eds.). (2017). Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1
• Attardo, S. (2000a). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 793-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00070-3
• Attardo, S. (2000b). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask. International Journal of Language and Communication, 12(1), 3-20.
• Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humour, 16(2), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2003.012
• Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. Textus. English Studies in Italy, 23(3), 543-563.
• Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Barcelona, A. (2003). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207-278). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Barcelona, A. (2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In C. Alm-Arvius, N. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 3-42). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
• Barcelona, A. (2009). The motivation of construction meaning and form. The roles of metonymy and inference. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 363-401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.22bar
• Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In A. Barcelona, R. Benczes, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7-57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
• Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001
• Barnden, J. A. (2015). Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980692
• Barnden, J. A. (2016). Metaphor and simile: Categorizing and comparing categorization and comparison. In E. Gola, & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and communication (pp. 25-46). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.5.02bar
• Barnden, J. A. (2017a). A hyperbole-based account of the paradoxical usage of “literally”. In A. Wallington, A. Foltz, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Selected Papers from UK CLA Meetings, Vol. 4 (pp. 111-130).
• Barnden, J. A. (2017b). Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp.145-178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.08bar
• Barnden, J. A. (2018a, October 23-26). Uniting irony, metaphor and hyperbole in a pretence-based, affect-centred framework [Conference presentation]. 4th International Conference on Figurative Thought and Language, Braga, Portugal.
• Barnden, J. A. (2018b). Broadly reflexive relationships, a special type of hyperbole, and implications for metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(3), 218-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1481256
• Barsalou, L. (2014). Cognitive Psychology. An overview for cognitive scientists. New York: Psychology Press (originally published in 1992 by Lawrence Erlbaum). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807485
• Beardsley, M. (1962). The metaphorical twist. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 22(3), 293-307. https://doi.org/10.2307/2104415
• Beardsley, M. (1976). Metaphor and falsity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35(2), 218-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/430379
• Bechtel, W. (2008). Mechanisms in Cognitive Psychology: What are the operations? Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 983-994. https://doi.org/10.1086/594540
• Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28
• Benson, T. W., & Prosser, M. M. (1972). Readings in classical rhetoric. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Bergen, B., & Binsted, K. (2003). The Cognitive Linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 79-92). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
• Bhaya, R. (1985). Telling lies: Some literary and other violations of Grice's maxim of quality. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 14, 53-71.
• Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield & Bristol: Equinox.
• Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501741326
• Black, M. (1979). More on metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19-45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Blanco-Carrión, O., Barcelona, A., & Pannain, R. (Eds.). (2018). Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60
• Blank, G. (1988). Metaphors in the lexicon. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(3), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0301_2
• Boas, H. C. (2005). From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer, & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp. 129-160). Tübingen: Narr.
• Booth, W. C. (1974). A rhetoric of irony. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6
• Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
• Brandt, P. A. (2005). Mental spaces and cognitive semantics: A critical comment. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1578-1594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.019
• Brdar, M. (2004). How pure is the pure hyperbole? The role of metonymic mappings in the construction of some hyperbolic effects. In D. Kučanda, M. Brdar, & B. Berić (Eds.), Teaching English for life. Studies to honour Prof. Elvira Petrović on the occasion of her 70th birthday (pp. 373-385). Osijek: Filozofski Fakultet.
• Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word formation. Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
• Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates. Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125-142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.09brd
• Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2010). “Mummy, I love you like a thousand ladybirds”: Reflections on the emergence of hyperbolic effects and the truth of hyperboles. In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s): The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (pp. 383-427). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110230215.383
• Bromiley, G. W. (Ed.). (1979). The international standard Bible encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (online access at https://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/)
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
• Brown, K., & Miller, J. E. (2013). The Cambridge dictionary of linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139049412
• Bryant, G. (2010). Prosodic contrasts in ironic speech. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 545-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903531972
• Burgers, C., Brugman, B. C., Renardel de Lavalette, K. Y., & Steen, G. J. (2016). HIP: A method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(3), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1187041
• Burgers, C., Van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2011). Finding irony: An introduction of the verbal irony procedure (VIP). Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 186-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583194
• Burkhardt, A. (2010). Between poetry and economy. Metonymy as a semantic principle. In A. Burkhardt, & B. Nerlich (Eds.), Tropical truth(s). The epistemology of metaphor and other tropes (pp. 245-270). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110230215.243
• Bussmann, H. (1996). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Routledge (Translated from Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart 1990).
• Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526
• Cann, R. (2011). Sense relations. In C. Maienborn, K. Von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 1. Handbook of linguistics and communication science (pp. 456-478). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.456
• Cano-Mora, L. (2003-2004). At the risk of exaggerating: How do listeners react to hyperbole? Anglogermanica Online, 2 (online access at http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2003-2004/Cano.htm)
• Cano-Mora, L. (2009). All or nothing: A semantic analysis of hyperbole. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 4(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2009.731
• Caplan, D., Waters, G., Kennedy, D., Alpert, N., Makris, N., DeDe, G., Michaud, J., & Reddy, A. (2007). A study of syntactic processing in aphasia II: Neurological aspects. Brain and Language, 101(2), 151-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.226
• Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603
• Carston, R. (2010). Explicit communication and 'free' pragmatic enrichment. In B. Soria, & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Essays on Robyn Carston's pragmatics (pp. 217-285). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_14
• Carston, R. (2016). Contextual adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Carston, R. (2017). Relevance theory and metaphor. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds.), Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 42-55). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283-312. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010
• Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.011
• Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004
• Chettih, S., Durgin, F. H., & Grodner, D. J. (2012). Mixing metaphors in the cerebral hemispheres: What happens when careers collide? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 295-311. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025862
• Chiappe, D., & Kennedy, J. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371-398. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005103211670
• Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218
• Cienki, A. (1998). Straight: An image schema and its transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 107-149. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.107
• Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 170-187). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
• Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585-2595. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654
• Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English. A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird, & P. C. Waston (Eds.), Thinking and reading in cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, H. H. (1991). Words and their possibilities in the world. In G. Lockhead, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), The perception of structure. Essays in honor of Wendell Garner (pp. 263-277). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10101-016
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Psychology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 121-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.113.1.121
• Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001
• Clifton, N. R. (1983). The figure in film. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
• Cohen, R. (1987). Problems of intercultural communication in Egyptian-American diplomatic relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(87)90030-7
• Colebrook, C. (2004). Irony. The new critical idiom. London & New York: Routledge.
• Colston, H. L., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2002). Are irony and metaphor understood differently? Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 57-80. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1701_5
• Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You'll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(4), 499-513. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023229304509
• Colston, H. L., & O'Brien, J. (2000). Contrast of kind versus contrast of magnitude: The pragmatic accomplishments of irony and hyperbole. Discourse Processes, 30(2), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3002_05
• Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352
• Coulson, S. (2005). Sarcasm and the space structuring model. In S. Coulson, & B. Lewandowska-Tomasczyk (Eds.), The literal and the nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 129-144). Berlin: Peter Lang.
• Coulson, S. (2006). Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 187-208). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 958-968. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195780
• Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. (2007). A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension?: ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research, 1146, 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.008
• Crisp, P. (2005). Allegory and symbol - a fundamental opposition? Language and Literature, 14(4), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947005051287
• Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335-370.
• Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cuenca, M. J. (2015). Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 140-166. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue
• Currie, G. (2006). Why irony is pretence. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of imagination (pp. 111-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199275731.003.0007
• Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. (2001). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.177
• Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Danesi, M. (2017). The bidirectionality of metaphor. Poetics Today, 38(1), 15-33. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716201
• Davenport, T., & Coulson, S. (2013). Hemispheric asymmetry in interpreting novel literal language: An event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 51(5), 907-921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.018
• De Groot, A. M. B., & Hagoort, P. (Eds.). (2018). Research methods in psycholinguists and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
• Deamer, F., Pouscoulous, N., & Breheny, R. (2010). A contrastive look at metaphor and hyperbole. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, 1-15.
• Del Campo Martínez, N. (2011). Cognitive modeling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392-412. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.2.03del
• Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351-380. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
• Dewell, R. B. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe (In cooperation with Grady, J. E.) (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 369-393). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.369
• Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Díez, O. I. (2005). Un análisis cognitivo de las metonimias de las partes del cuerpo: Clasificación, motivación construccional y modos de interacción [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of La Rioja.
• Dirven, R. (1993). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense Bijdragen, 82, 1-28.
• Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & Ł. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 13-70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Dirven, R., Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H.-G. (2010). Cognitive linguistics, ideology, and critical discourse analysis. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1222-1240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57-91). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.57
• Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75(3), 281-304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183143
• Dupriez, B. M. (1991). A dictionary of literary devices: Gradus, A-Z. Toronto & Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442670303
• Dynel, M. (2016). Two layers of overt untruthfulness. When irony meets metaphor, hyperbole or meiosis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(2), 259-283. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.2.03dyn
• Dynel, M. (2017). Implicitness via overt untruthfulness. Grice on quality-based figures of speech. In P. Cap, & M. Dynel (Eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse (pp. 121-145). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.06dyn
• Dynel, M. (2018). Irony, deception, and humor. Seeking the truth about overt and covert truthfulness. Boston & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507922
• Edelmann, R. J., Asendorpf, J., Contarello, A., Zammuner, V., Georgas, J., & Villanueva, C. (1989). Self-reported expression of embarrassment in five European cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(4), 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022189204002
• Edwards, D. (2010). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347-373. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
• Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
• Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621-634. https://doi.org/10.1086/431525
• Falkum, I. L. (2007). A relevance-theoretic analysis of concept narrowing and broadening in English and Norwegian original texts and translations. Languages in Contrast, 7(2), 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.2.03fal
• Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582
• Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220
• Fauconnier, G. (2009). Generalized integration networks. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 147-160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.12fau
• Fauconnier, G. (2018). Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004360716
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces. Technical Report 9401. UCSD, Department of Cognitive Science, San Diego. (online access at http://cogsci.ucsd.edu and from http://www.wam.umd.edu/~mturn)
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 113-130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53-66). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
• Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89(2), 385-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00355-9
• Filippova, E., & Astington, J. W. (2010). Children's understanding of social-cognitive and social communicative aspects of discourse irony. Child Development, 81(3), 913-928. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01442.x
• Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Types of lexical information. In D. Steinberg, & L. Jacobovitz (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 370-392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-138). Seoul: Hanshin.
• Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222-255.
• Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: the case of RISK. In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
• Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O'Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical construction: The case of 'let alone'. Language, 64(3), 501-538. https://doi.org/10.2307/414531
• Fogelin, R. J. (1988). Figuratively speaking. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
• Fogelin, R. J. (2011). Figuratively speaking (2nd ed. - revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199739998.001.0001
• Forceville, Ch. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00007-8
• Fougner, A. (2014). La créativité traductionnelle - résultante d'une aptitude à visualiser. FORUM, 12(1), 137-163. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.12.1.07ryd
• Freeman, M. H. (2017). Multimodalities of metaphor: A perspective from the poetic arts. Poetics Today, 38(1), 61-92. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716228
• Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366-1383. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.25.6.1366
• Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678893
• Galera, A. (2020). The role of echoing in meaning construction and interpretation. A cognitive-linguistic perspective. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00049.mas
• Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., & Petersen, W. (Eds.). (2014). Frames and concept types. Applications in language and philosophy. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5
• Garmendia, J. (2018). Irony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316136218
• Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 223-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896
• Gentner, D., Imai, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2002). As time goes by: Understanding time as spatial metaphor. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 537-565.
• Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R. W., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782
• Geurts, B. (2009). Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics. Mind and Language, 24(1), 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.x
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1986a). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.3
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1986b). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90028-8
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1986c). Comprehension and memory for nonliteral utterances: The problem of sarcastic indirect requests. Acta Psychologica, 62(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(86)90004-1
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1990). Comprehending figurative referential descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16(1), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.16.1.56
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2000a). Making good psychology out of blending theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3&4), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.020
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2000b). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what speakers say and implicate. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2005a). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35-56). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2005b). Embodied action in thought and language. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 225-247). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006a). Embodiment in cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006b). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2007). Irony among friends. In R. W. Gibbs, & H. L. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader (pp. 339-360). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410616685
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2013). The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 40, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2014). Embodied metaphor. In J. Littlemore, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 167-184). London: Blooomsbury.
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2017). Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 347-378. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2006). Figurative language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguitics (2nd ed.) (pp. 835-861). London & Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50022-5
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Gerrig, R. J. (1989). How context makes metaphor comprehension seem “special”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4(3), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0403_3
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Izett, C. D. (2005). Irony as persuasive communication. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 131-151). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (p. 161-176). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011
• Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544916
• Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
• Giora, R. (2001). Irony and its discontent. In D. Shram, & G. Steen (Eds). Utretch publications in general and comparative literature. The psychology and sociology of literature: in Honour of Elrud Isch, vol. 35 (pp. 165-184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/upal.35.11gio
• Giora, R. (2002). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Giora, R., & Fein, O. (1999). Irony: Context and salience, Metaphor and Symbol, 14(4), 241-257. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1404_1
• Giora, R., Fein, O., Ganzi, J., Alkeslassy Levi, N., & Sabah, H. (2005). On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, 39, 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
• Giora, R., Fein, O., Kaufman, R., Eisenberg, D., & Erez, S. (2009). Does an “ironic situation” favor an ironic interpretation? In G. Brone, & J. Vandaele (Eds.) Cognitive Poetics. Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 383-399). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Giora, R., Fein, O., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Irony: Graded salience and indirect negation. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1302_1
• Giora, R., Gazal, O., & Goldstein, I. (2012). Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1), 22-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.638823
• Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 290-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804
• Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., & Kasher, A. (2000). Differential effects of right-and left-hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678865
• Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
• Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 21(1), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90467-4
• Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 401-424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020
• Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000
• Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gonzálvez, F., Peña, M. S., & Pérez, L. (Eds.). (2013). Metaphor and metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Recent developments and applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Previously published in Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 2011). https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.56
• Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
• Grady, J. (1997a). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267-290. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
• Grady, J. (1997b). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley.
• Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W., Jr. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79-100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
• Grady, J. (2005a). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1595-1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
• Grady, J. (2005b). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 35-56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.35
• Grady, J., & Ascoli, G. A. (2017). Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 27-45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.003
• Grady, J., Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen, & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101-124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
• Grady, J. & Johnson, C. (2002). Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533-553). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.533
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 43-58). New York: Academic Press.
• Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in lexical relations [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/gruber65.pdf
• Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hamamoto, H. (1998). Irony from a cognitive perspective. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp. 257-270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.14ham
• Hamilton, E., & Huntington, C. (Eds.). (1961). The collected dialogues of Plato. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1c84fb0
• Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532
• Handl, S. (2011). The conventionality of figurative language. A usage-based study. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
• Harder, P. (2003). Mental spaces: Exactly when do we need them? Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2003.004
• Harris, R., & Taylor, T. J. (1996). Landmarks in linguistic thought: The Western tradition from Socrates to Saussure. London: Routledge.
• Haverkate, H. (1990). A speech-act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 77-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90065-L
• Hawkes, T. (1972). Metaphor. London & New York: Methuen.
• Henle, P. (1958). Metaphor. In P. Henle (Ed.) (1981), Language, thought and culture (pp. 173-195). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
• Reprinted in M. Johnson (Ed.) (1981), Philosophical perspectives on metaphor (pp. 83-104). Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
• Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (Eds.). (2015). Bilingual figurative language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342100
• Herrero-Ruiz, J. (2009). Understanding tropes. At the crossroads between pragmatics and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Herrero-Ruiz, J. (2018). Exaggerating and mitigating through metonymy: The case of situational and CAUSE FOR EFFECT/EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymies. Language & Communication, 62, 51-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.07.001
• Hong, H. V. (Ed.). (1989). The concept of irony with continual reference to Socrates, by Soren Kierkegaard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hopper, P. J. (2012). Emergent Grammar. In J. Gee, & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 301-312). New York: Routledge.
• Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of logical operators in English (Publication No. 73-1702) [Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/images/stories/Horn.1972.pdf
• Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Horn, L. (2017). Lie-toe-tease: Double negatives and unexcluded middles. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 79-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0509-y
• Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.6
• Huddleston, R., & G. Pullum. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
• Hussey, K., & Katz, A. N. (2009). Perception of the use of metaphor by an interlocutor in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(4), 203-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480903310237
• Hutcheon, L. (1994). Irony's edge. London: Routledge.
• Iza, A. (2015). Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. International Journal of English Studies, 15(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2015/1/194941
• Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Jakobson, R. (1971). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jakobson, & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (pp. 54-82). The Hague: Mouton.
• Reprinted in R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.). (2002). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41-47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Johnson, C. (1999). Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy. The case of see. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 155-169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.152.12joh
• Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
• Kaan, E. (2007). Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 571-591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00037.x
• Kapogianni, E. (2011). Irony via “surrealism”. In M. Dynel (Ed.), The pragmatics of humor across discourse domains (pp. 51-68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.210.05kap
• Katz, A. N. (1996). Experimental psycholinguistics and figurative language: Circa 1995. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_2
• Katz, A. N. (2005). Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language. In H. Colston, & A. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Katz, A. N., & Al-Azary, H. (2017). Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38(1), 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716215
• Katz, A. N., & Ferretti, T. (2001). Moment-by-moment reading of proverbs in literal and nonliteral contexts. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 193-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678895
• Kaufer, D. (1977). Irony and rhetorical strategy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 10(2), 90-110.
• Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The 'What's X doing Y' construction. Language, 75, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.2307/417472
• Keysar, B. (1989). On the functional equivalence of literal and metaphorical interpretations in discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(4), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90017-X
• Kittay, E. F. (1987). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139-168). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.09koc
• Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion concepts. Berlin & New York: Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3312-1
• Kövecses, Z. (1999). Does metaphor reflect or constitute cultural models? In R. W., Jr. Gibbs, & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 167-188). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.10kov
• Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408
• Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (2008). Metaphor and emotion. In R. W., Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 380-396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.023
• Kövecses, Z. (2009). Metaphor, culture, and discourse: The pressure of coherence. In A. Musolff, & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp. 11-24). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_2
• Kövecses, Z. (2013). The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498
• Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
• Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127
• Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-77. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
• Kreuz, R. J., & Caucci, G. M. (2009). Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind (pp. 325-348). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216080.2.325
• Kreuz, R. J., Kassler, M. A., & Coppenrath, L. (1998). The use of hyperbole in discourse: Cognitive and social facets. In S. R. Fussell, & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 91-111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M. (1995). Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1001_3
• Kreuz, R. J., Roberts, R. M., Johnson, B. K., & Bertus, E. L. (1996). Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature. In R. J. Kreuz, & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 83-98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Kroll, J. F., & Rossi, E. (2013). Bilingualism and multilingualism: Quantitative methods. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encylopedia of Applied Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431
• Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M. (1995). How about another piece of the pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.3
• Kunneman, F., Liebrecht, C., Van den Bosch, A., & Van Mulken, M. (2015). Signaling sarcasm: From hyperbole to hashtag. Information Processing and Management, 51(4), 500-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.07.006
• Lakoff, G. (1986). The meanings of literal. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1(4), 291-296. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0104_3
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
• Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39-74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
• Lakoff, G. (1992). Metaphors and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Studies in honour of Rene Dirven on occasion of his 60th birthday. Thirty years of linguistic evolution (pp. 463-482). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.61.36lak
• Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
• 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: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. (2009). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
• Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
• Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524
• Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 24-63). Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524.91
• Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
• Langlotz, A. (2015). Local meaning-negotiation, activity types, and the current-discourse-space model. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 515-545. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.21
• Lausberg, H. (1990). Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Hueber.
• Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London & New York: Longman.
• Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
• Leezenberg, M. (2001). Contexts of metaphor. Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585473932
• Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
• Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Hidden shortcuts in language, thought, and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814
• López-Rodríguez, I. (2009). Of women, bitches, chickens and vixens: Animal metaphors for women in English and Spanish. Cultura, lenguaje y representación, 7, 77-100.
• Lovejoy, A. O. (1936). The Great Chain of Being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
• Lozano-Palacio, I., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2022). Modeling irony: A cognitive-pragmatic account. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge & London: The MIT press.
• Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler, & J. Martín-Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153-198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
• Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mandler, J. M., & Pagán, C. C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14
• Martinich, A. P. (1984). Communication and reference. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856255
• Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389-1400. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329
• McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2004). “There's millions of them”: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4
• Miller, G. A. (1993). Images and models, similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 357-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.019
• Mio, J. S., & Katz, A. N. (Eds.). (1996). Metaphor: Implications and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Miró, I. (2018). Combining metaphors: From metaphoric amalgams to binary systems. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(1), 81-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1393860
• Mittelberg, I. (2010). Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In V. Evans, & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 351-385). London: Equinox.
• Mittelberg, I. (2013). The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Tessendorf (Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Vol. 1) (pp. 750-779). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.755
• Mittelberg, I., & Joue, G. (2017). Source actions ground metaphor via metonymy: Toward a frame-based account of gestural action in multimodal discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 119-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.008
• Mooij, J. J. A. (1976). A study of metaphor. Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Moore, K. E. (2014a). The spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy and frames of reference. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.42
• Moore, K. E. (2014b). The two-mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 375-409. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.05moo
• Morgan, J. L. (1993). Observations on the pragmatics of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 124-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.010
• Morrison, D. R. (Ed.) (2011). The Cambridge companion to Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521833424
• Muecke, D. C. (1970). Irony and the ironic: The critical idiom. London: Methuen.
• Murphy, J. J. (Ed.). (2010). Arguments in rhetoric against Quintilian: Translation and text of Peter Ramus's Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum (1549) (Translated by Carole Newlands. 2nd ed. Carbondale/Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press).
• Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 109, 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
• Nemesi, A. L. (2010). Data-gathering methods in research on hyperbole production and interpretation. In E. T. Nemeth, & K. Bibok (Eds.), The role of data at the semantic-pragmatic interface (pp. 381-417). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240276.381
• Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (1999). Synecdoche as a cognitive and communicative strategy. In A. Blank, & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 197-214). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Nerlich, B., & Chamizo, P. J. (2003). The use of literally: Vice or virtue? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.11ner
• Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85, 355-404. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0107
• Norrick, N. R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727-1739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006
• Noveck, I., Bianco, M., & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1&2), 109-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678889
• Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.109
• Oakley, T. (2010). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 214-235). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0009
• Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865
• Padilla, M. (Ed.). (2016). Relevance theory. Recent developments, current challenges and future directions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268
• Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353-386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 755-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9
• Panther, K-U., & Thornburg, L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333-357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
• Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 215-232). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Panther, K-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25
• Peña, M. S. (2003). Topology and cognition. What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. München: Lincom Europa.
• Peña, M. S. (2008). Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001
• Peña, M. S. (2016). Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(2), 474-497. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.14.2.08pen
• Peña, M. S. (2019). How do hyperbolic effects emerge? In A. C. Pelosi & M. F. Fontenelle Carneiro (Eds.), Linguagem e pensamento: Pesquisas, reflexões e práticas (pp. 155-176). São Luís, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Brasil: EDUFMA.
• Peña, M. S. (forthcoming). For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health: A cognitive-linguistic approach to merism. Metaphor and Symbol.
• Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339-361). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.21pen
• Peña, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 41-73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.02pen
• Pérez, L., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirective speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(3), 259-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9
• Pérez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2
• Pfaff, K., Gibbs, R., & Johnson, M. (1997). Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 59-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009875
• Piskorska, A., & Wałaszewska, E. (Eds.). (2017). Applications of Relevance Theory. From discourse to morphemes. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2&3), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
• Popa-Wyatt, M. (2014). Pretence and echo: Towards an integrated account of verbal irony. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 127-168. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601007
• Popa-Wyatt, M. (2020). Mind the gap: Expressing affect with hyperbole and hyperbolic figures. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 449-468). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.16pop
• Prandi, M. (2017). Conceptual conflicts in metaphors and figurative language. New York & Lodon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208763
• Quintero, R. (2007). Introduction: Understanding satire. In R. Quintero (Ed.), A companion to satire: Ancient and modern (pp. 1-12). Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996959.ch1
• Radden, G. (1996). Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 423-458). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Récanati, F. (1989). The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4(4), 295-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00258.x
• Récanati, F. (1993). Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Récanati, F. (2007). Indexicality, context and pretense: A speech-act theory account. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics (pp. 213-229). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_11
• Regel, S., Coulson, S., & Gunter, T. C. (2010). The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of irony. Brain Research, 1311, 121-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.077
• Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn't it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21411
• Reyes, A., & Rosso, P. (2014). On the difficulty of automatically detecting irony: Beyond a simple case of negation. Knowledge and Information Systems, 40(3), 595-614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-013-0652-8
• Rich, A. N., & Mattingley, J. B. (2002). Anomalous perception in synesthesia: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn702
• Richards, I. A. (1925). Principles of literary criticism. London: Kegan Paul.
• Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ritchie, L. D. (2004). Metaphors in conversational context: Toward a connectivity theory of metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1904_2
• Ritchie, L. D. (2017). Contextual activation of story simulation in metaphor comprehension. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 220-238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.013
• Rohrer, T. (2005). Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165-196). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.2.165
• Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and experientialism. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 25-47). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
• Romano, M. (2015). Are similes and metaphors interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
• Romero, E., & Soria, B. (2014). Relevance Theory and metaphor. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140303-0314
• Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R. (2013). How metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theoretic account of loose use. In D. Mazzarella, I. Needham-Didsbury, & K. Tang (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 20-45.
• Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R. (2015). Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.980699
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1996). Blended spaces and the pragmatic approach to cognition. In B. Penas (Ed.), The intertextual dimension of discourse (pp. 233-244). Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997a). Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. Atlantis: Revista Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos, 19(1), 281-295.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1997b). Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6(2), 161-178.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(3), 259-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999a). Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingüística y Método Ediciones.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1999b). From semantic underdetermination via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Linguistic LAUD Agency. University of Essen. Series A. General and Theoretical Papers. Paper no. 492.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109-132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2005). Construing meaning through conceptual mappings. In P. Fuertes (Ed.), Lengua y sociedad: aportaciones recientes en Lingüística Cognitiva, Lingüística del Corpus, Lenguajes de Especialidad y Lenguas en Contacto (pp. 19-38). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103-123). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014a). 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 (pp. 143-166). London: Bloomsbury.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014b). Mapping concepts. Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 187-207. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.08rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014c). Low-level situational cognitive models within the Lexical Constructional Model and their computational implementation in FunGramKB. In B. Nolan, & C. Periñán (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp. 367-390). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.15iba
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2015). Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 258-274. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2015.258.274
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017a). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017b). Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 30(1), 297-322. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017c). Cognitive modeling and irony. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in language use and communication (pp. 179-200). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.1.09dem
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020a). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020b). Figurative language: Relations and constraints. In J. Barnden, & A. Gargett (Eds.), Producing figurative expression: Theoretical, experimental and practical perspectives (pp. 469-510). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.10.17rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2021). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and grammar-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439221
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95-128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• 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 & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. (2004). Metonymic motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 293-320). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• 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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.12rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In M. A. Gómez, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. Gonzálvez, & A. Downing (Eds.), Theory and practice in functional-cognitive space (pp. 295-314). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019a). Unraveling irony: From linguistics to literary criticism and back. Cognitive Semantics, 5(1), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00501006
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2019b). A cognitive-linguistic approach to complexity in irony: Dissecting the ironic echo. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611714
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Lozano-Palacio, I. (2021). On verbal and situational irony: Towards a unified approach. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 213-240). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.07rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Luzondo, A. (2016). Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 32-58. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.41
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33-49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.05rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(3&4), 355-400. https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.355
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Miró, I. (2019). On the cognitive grounding of agent-deprofiling constructions as a case of pretense constructions. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 32(2), 573-589. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17006.men
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Otal, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada: Comares.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, M. S. (2005). Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254-280). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, M. S. (2008). Grammatical metonymy within the 'action' frame in English and Spanish. In M. A. Gómez-González, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive Perspectives (pp. 251-280). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.60.15rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21(4), 321-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2003). Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther, & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 23-49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.05rui
• Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 161-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
• Rumelhart, D. E. (1993). Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 71-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.007
• Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 155-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7
• Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp. 51-77). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
• Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When 'others' initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205-243. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205
• Schifanella, R., de Juan, P., Tetreault, J., & Cao, L. (2016). Detecting sarcasm in multimodal social platforms. Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 1136-1145). Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2964284.2964321
• Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. (2000). Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1&2), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678864
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
• Searle, J. R. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894
• Searle, J. R. (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
• Searle, J. R. (1993). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 83-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.008
• Seto, K. (1998). On non-echoic irony. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and implications (pp. 239-255). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.13set
• Seto, K. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91-120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set
• Seto, K. (2003). Metonymic polysemy and its place in meaning extension. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 195-216). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.195
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Loose talk. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 86(1), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/86.1.153
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary theory of metaphor. In R. W., Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
• Spitzbardt, H. (1963). Overstatement and understatement in British and American English. Philologica Pragensia, 6, 277-286.
• Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Berenike Herrmann, J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
• Stirling, L. (1996). Metonymy and anaphora. In W. Mulder, & L. Tasmowki (Eds.), Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 10 (Coherence and anaphora), 69-88. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.10.06sti
• Strik Lievers, F. (2017). Figures and the senses. Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str
• Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165-205). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.08tal
• Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I: Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Taverniers, M. (2017). Metaphor in pragmatics. In A. Barron, Y. Gu, & G. Steen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 323-340). London: Routledge.
• Tendahl, M. (2009). A hybrid theory of metaphor. Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244313
• Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823-1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
• Tobin, V., & Israel, M. (2012). Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. In B. Dancygier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language (pp. 24-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.004
• Todorov, T. (1970). Synecdoches. Communications, 16, 26-35. https://doi.org/10.3406/comm.1970.1227
• Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Turner, M. (2008). Frame blending. In R. Rossini Favretti (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp. 13-32). Bologna: Bononia University Press.
• Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3
• Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
• Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (1996). An introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
• Van Dijk, T. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273
• Van Heuven, W. J. B., & Dijkstra, T. (2010). Language comprehension in the bilingual brain: fMRI and ERP support for psycholinguistic models. Brain Research Reviews, 64(1), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.002
• Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Veale, T., & Hao, Y. (2010, August 16-20). Detecting ironic intent in creative comparisons [Conference presentation]. 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal.
• Vega Moreno, R. E. (2007). Creativity and convention. The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.156
• Walaszewska, E. (2011). Broadening and narrowing in lexical development: How relevance theory can account for children's overextensions and underextensions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 314-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.017
• Walton, D. N. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.5
• Walton, K. L. (2017). Meiosis, hyperbole, irony. Philosophical Studies, 174(1), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0546-6
• Way, E. C. (1991). Knowledge representation and metaphor. Oxford: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7941-4
• Whitehead, K. A. (2015). Extreme-case formulations. In K. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1-5). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi011
• Wilson, D. (2011). Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.009
• Wilson, D. (2013). Irony comprehension: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(A), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.016
• Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the 'emergent property' issue. Mind & Language, 21(3), 404-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x
• Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference, and ad hoc concepts. In E. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230-260). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12
• Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1981). On verbal irony. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 195-318). New York: Academic Press.
• Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123-145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
• Winner, E., & Gardner, H. (1993). Metaphor and irony: Two levels of understanding. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 425-443). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.021
• Winter, B. (2019). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed, C. O'Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perceptual metaphor (pp. 105-126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.06win
• Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1456-1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x
• Yamanashi, M. (1998). Some issues in the treatment of irony and related tropes. In R. Carston, & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance Theory (pp. 271-282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.15yam
• Zekavat, M. (2019). Reflexive humour and satire: A critical review. European Journal of Humour Research, 7(4), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2019.7.4.zekavat
• Zinken, J., & Musolff, A. (2009). A discourse-centred perspective on metaphorical meaning and understanding. In A. Musolff, & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and discourse (pp. 1-8). Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_1