ES
Journal cover Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, volume 52, no. 3, year 2025
PDF (Español (España))

How to Cite

Pascual-López, X. (2025). ES: ES. Studia Romanica Posnaniensia, 52(3), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.14746/strop.2025.52.3.9
https://doi.org/10.14746/strop.2025.52.3.9
PDF (Español (España))

References

Benczes, R. (2011). Putting the notion of “domain” back into metonymy: Evidence from compounds. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics Towards a consensus view (pp. 197-215). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.11ben

Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4/4, 335-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335

Gibbs Jr., R.W. (1999). Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 61-76). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.04gib

Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003 [1980]). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001

Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001

Langacker, R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4/1, 1-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1

Moreno Cabrera (1998). On the Relationships Between Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. In A. Giacalone Ramat & P.J. Hopper (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization (pp. 211-227). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.37.10mor

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (1999). Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la metonimia. Granada: Granada Lingvistica.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2003). The role of mapping and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective (pp. 109-132). Berlin-New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.109

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and Communication, 21 (4), 321-357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8

Terhalle, A.L. (2023). Metonymy in Frames. The Role of Functional Relations in Contiguity-Based Se- mantic Shifts of Nouns. Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110755459

Traugott, E.C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29-71). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29

Traugott, E.C. (2012). Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K.H. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 549-565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030

Traugott, E.C. & Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500