Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:1 (2014) ► pp.223–242

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

In search of motivation in language

An interview with Klaus-Uwe Panther

 | Josip juraj Strossmayer University, Osijek
 | Loránd Eötvös University, Budapest
Published online: 23 April 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.08brd
References (34)
Baicchi, A. (2011). Metaphoric motivation in grammatical structure: The caused-motion construction from the perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics , 211, 1-34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brdar, M. (2009). Metonymies we live without. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & 
A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 259–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & R. Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1984). Espaces mentaux: Aspects de la construction du sens dans les langues naturelles . Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1999). Metonymy and conceptual integration. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 77–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2011). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subject-transitive construction. Linguistics , 491, 1305–1358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2013). Variation and change in the encoding of motion events . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions. Cognitive Linguistics , 11, 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes . Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics , 91, 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2013). Control in Generative Grammar: A research companion . Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics , 151, 1–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (1994). Kontrollphänomene im Englischen und Deutschen aus semantisch-pragmatischer Perspektive . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008). Relating participants across asymmetric events: Conceptual constraints on obligatory control. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Asymmetric events (pp. 209–225). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014). Metaphor and metonymy shaping grammar: The role of animal terms in expressive morphology and syntax. Journal of Foreign Languages , 37, 2–20.
Panther, K.-U., & Köpcke, K.-M. (1989). On correlations between word-order and pragmatic function of conditional sentences in German. Journal of Pragmatics , 131, 685–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eds.) (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics , 30(6), 755–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999). Coercion and metonymy: The interaction of constructional and lexical meaning. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language (pp. 37–52). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012). Conceptualizing humans as animals in English verb-particle constructions. Language Value , 4(1), 63–83. Available on-line at: [URL]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eds.) (2003). How universal are conceptual metonymies?: A cross-language comparison. Special issue. Jezikoslovlje , 4(1). ([URL], or: [URL]).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G, & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & 
G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2004). Studies in linguistic motivation . Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica , 421, 355–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems . Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.-U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In W.-A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 205–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2018. What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?. In Conceptual metonymy [Human Cognitive Processing, 60], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Szeverényi, Sándor
2017. Proceedings of the 4th Mikola Conference - 14-15, November 2014 [Proceedings of the 4th Mikola Conference - 14-15, November 2014, 51], ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Benczes, Réka
2015. “Cognitive Linguistics is fun”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2 ► pp. 479 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue