Article published In: Expressing and Describing Surprise
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 479–506
“Cognitive Linguistics is fun”
An interview with Günter Radden
Published online: 31 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.09ben
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.09ben
References (63)
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (Eds.). (2011). Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brdar, M., & Brdar Szabó, R. (2014). In search of motivation in language: An interview with Klaus-Uwe Panther. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 223–242.
Cuyckens, H., Berg, T., Dirven, R., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2003). Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Denroche, C. (2015). Metonymy in language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.
Deutscher, G. (2010). The new linguistic relativism in the NY Times. [URL]. Last accessed: April 2015.
Dirven, R., & Geiger, R.A. (Eds.). (1989). A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
Dirven, R., Hünig, W., Kühlwein, W., Radden, G., & Strauß, J. (1976). Die Leistung der Linguistik für den Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
. (Eds.). (1981). Kasusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik. Trier: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.
Gomila, A. (2015). Language and thought: The neo-Whorfian hypothesis. In J.D. Wight (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 293–299). 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier.
Górska, E., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (2006). Metaphor–metonymy collage. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
Hamilton, J.O.C. (2010). You say up, I say yesterday. Stanford Magazine, May/June. [URL].
Humboldt, W. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihr Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Dümmlers.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.
. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2012). Linguistic manifestation of space-time (dis)analogy. In L. Filipović & K.M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures (pp. 191–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Matlock, T. (2011). The conceptual motivation of aspect. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 133–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Niemeier, S. (2008). The notion of boundedness/unboundedness in the foreign language classroom. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 309–327). Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
Nikiforidou, K. (1999). Nominalizations, metonymy and lexicographic practice. In L. de Stadler & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 141–163). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Norrick, N.R. (1981). Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 369–316.
Radden, G. (1989a). Semantic roles. In R. Dirven & R.A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction (pp. 421–272). Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
. (1989b). Figurative use of prepositions. In R. Dirven & R.A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction (pp. 551–576). Frankfurt/Main: Lang.
. (2004a). The metonymic folk model of language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & A. Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Imagery in language: Festschrift in honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker (pp. 543–565). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
. (2004b). The metaphor time as space across languages. In N. Baumarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz, & J. Probst (Eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen: Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60 (pp. 225–238). Geburtstag. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
. (2005).Accessing generic referents by metonymy. In A.J. Schuth, K. Horner, & J. J. Weber (Eds.), Life in language: Studies in honour of Wolfgang Kühlwein (pp. 121–133). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
. (2006a). Where time meets space. In R. Benczes & S. Csábi (Eds.), The metaphors of sixty: Papers presented on the occasion of the 60th birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 210–226). Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University.
. (2006b). The metaphor time as space across languages. In E. Górska & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy-metaphor collage (pp. 99–120). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
. (2007). Interaction of modality and negation. In W. Chłopicki, A. Pawelec, & A. Pokojska (Eds.), Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska (pp. 224–254). Krakow: Tertium.
. (2009a). Affirmative and negated modality. In M.A. Olivares & E. Llácer (Eds.), Nuevas perspectivas en Lingüistica Cognitiva/New perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 169–192). Valencia: Universitat de València.
. (2009b). Generic reference in English: A metonymic and conceptual blending analysis. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 199–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2011). Spatial time in the West and the East. In M. Brdar, M. Omazic, V. Pavičić Takač, T. Gradečak-Erdeljić, & G. Buljan (Eds.), Space and time in language (pp. 1–40). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
. (2014). Making sense of negated modals in English, with a glimpse at other Germanic languages. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 471–491.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (1999). The cognitive basis of language: Language and thought. In R. Dirven & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1999). Putting concepts together: Syntax. In R. Dirven & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T., & Siemund, P. (Eds.). (2007). Aspects of meaning construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and lhought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2007). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B.K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.
Radden, G., & Matthis, E. (2002). Why similar to but different from? In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 231–255). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2004a). Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2004b). Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2011). Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Seto, K. (2003). Metonymic construals of shopping requests in have- and be-languages. In K.-U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 223–239). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 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.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Denroche, Charles
2019. Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation. Metaphor and the Social World 9:2 ► pp. 177 ff.
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.
