Brexit means Brexita constructionist analysis

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

• Alibali, Martha W., Dana C. Heath, and Heather J. Myers (2001). Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: Some gestures are meant to be seen. Journal of Memory and Language 44.2: 169–188.
• Autenrieth, Tanja (1997) Tautologien sind Tautologien. In Eckard Rolf (ed.), Pragmatik. Implikaturen und Sprechakte [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderherft 8] (pp. 12–32) Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
• Baker, Paul (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
• Beckman, Mary E., Julia Hirschberg, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.) Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing (pp. 9–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Blitz, James (2016, December 20). Year in a word: Brexit. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/2041e104-c394-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354
• Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bybee, Joan L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733.
• Casasanto, D. and R. Bottini (2014). Mirror-reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143: 473–479.
• Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Csabi, Szilvia and Zoltán Kövecses (2014). Lexicography and cognitive linguistics. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 27.1: 118–139.
• Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dehaene, S., Bossini, S & Hiraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and numerical magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122.3: 371–396
• del Campo, Nuria (2011). A constructional approach to the expression of illocutionary meaning: An analysis of constructions performing the speech acts of requesting and begging. RESLA 24: 43–60.
• del Campo, Nuria (2013). Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
• Dimitrova, Diana, Mingyuan Chu, Lin Wang, Asli Özyürek, and Peter Hagoort (2016). Beat that word: How listeners integrate beat gesture and focus in multimodal speech discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 28.9: 1255–1269.
• Emmet, Dorothy (1962). ‘That’s that’: Or some uses of tautology. Philosophy 37: 15–24.
• Farghal, Mohammed (1992). Colloquial Jordanian Arabic tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 17.3: 223–240.
• Fillmore, Charles (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
• Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501–538.
• Fontaine, Lise (2017). The early semantics of the neologism BREXIT: A lexicogrammatical approach. Functional Linguistics 4:6(1–15). DOI 10.1186/s40554-017-0040-x
• Fraser, Bruce (1988). Motor oil is motor oil: An account of English nominal tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 12.2: 215–220.
• Fried, Mirjam (2015). Construction Grammar. In Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook (pp. 974–1003). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Frost, Tom (2017). Review of Brexit: Sociological Responses, edited by William Outhwaite, London, Anthem Press, 2017, 224 pp. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 4.4: 487–501.
• Gamble, Andrew (2017). British politics after Brexit. Political Insight 8.1: 4–6.
• Geeraerts, Dirk (2003). Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In René Dirven, Roslyn M. Frank, and Martin Pütz (eds), Cognitive Models in Language and Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings (pp. 25–68). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.
• Geoghegan, Peter (2017, March 16). Brexit Means Brexit – but what does Brexit mean? Political Insight 8.1: 3.
• Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen and Kevin Russell (2004). Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22.2: 307–357.
• Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 411–446). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Gibbs, Raymond W. and Nancy S. McCarrell (1990). Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19.2: 125–145.
• Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics 1.2: 153–166.
• Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
• Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Goldberg, Adele. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
• Holler, Judith and & Stephen C. Levinson (2019). Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23.8: 639–652.
• Kendon, Adam (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In M. R. Key (ed.), The Relation between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (pp. 207–227). The Hague: Mouton.
• Koller, Veronika, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer (eds), (2019). Discourses of Brexit. London: Routledge.
• Kwon, Iksoo (2009). A tautology is a tautology: Specificity and categorization in nominal tautological constructions. In Iksoo Kwon, Hannah Pritchett and Justin Spence (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Negation (pp. 211–222). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
• Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
• Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Lucero, Ché, Holly Zaharchuk, and Daniel Casasanto (2014). Beat gestures facilitate speech production. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane and B. Scassellati (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 898–903). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• Mardell, Mark (2016, July 16). What does 'Brexit means Brexit' mean? BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36782922
• Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Martin, Mike W. (2013). Of Mottos and Morals: Simple Words for Complex Virtues. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Mass, A. Suitner, C. Favaretto, X. & Cignacchi, M. (2009). Groups in space: stereotypes and the spatial agency bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45.3: 496–504.
• McFadden, Pat (2016, September 5). Brexit means what?. Retrieved from https://www.open-britain.co.uk/brexit_means_what
• McNeill, David (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• McNeill, David (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Meibauer, Jörg (2008). Tautology as presumptive meaning. Pragmatics & Cognition 16.3: 439–470.
• Min, Shang-Chao (2019). Study on the differences of speech act of criticism in Chinese and English. US-China Foreign Language 6.3: 74–77.
• Mompean, Jose A. (2004). Category overlap and neutralization: The importance of speakers’ classifications in phonology. Cognitive Linguistics 15.4: 429–469.
• Mompean, Jose A. (2006). The phoneme as a basic-level category: Experimental evidence from English. International Journal of English Studies 6.2: 141–172.
• Mompean, Jose A. (2014). Cognitive linguistics and phonology. In John Taylor and Jeannette Littlemore (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 253–276). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Moseley, Tom (2016, December 25). The rise of the word Brexit. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37896977
• Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David Mcneill, and Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.) (2013), Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1). Berlin: Mouton.
• Okamoto, Shigeko (1993). Nominal repetitive constructions in Japanese: The 'tautology' controversy revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 20.5: 433–466.
• Outhwaite, William (ed.) (2017). Brexit: Sociological Responses. London: Anthem Press.
• Pagán Cánovas, Cristobal and Javier Valenzuela (2017). Timelines and multimodal constructions: Facing new challenges. Linguistic Vanguard 3(s1). DOI 10.1515/lingvan-2016-0087
• Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30(6): 755–769.
• Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg (2005). Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive linguistic approach. In Sophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou, and Eleni Antonopoulou (eds), Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends in the 21st Century (pp. 53–76). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Partington, Alan (2008). The armchair and the machine: Corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). In C. Taylor Torsello, Katherine Ackerley, and Erik Castello (eds), Corpora for University Language Teachers (pp. 95–118). Bern: Peter Lang.
• Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA 25: 189–210.
• Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication 33: 128–149.
• Pérez-Hernández, Lorena and Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza (2011). A Lexical-Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 99–137.
• Radden, Günter and Zoltán Kövecses (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Rhodes, Russell (2009). A cross-linguistic comparison of tautological constructions with special focus on English. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/afc4/5668665b4ce2f18795acbc1b06d0f3393dce.pdf
• Riley-Smith, Ben (2018, August 6). Arguments made for and against Brexit during the EU referendum campaign. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/arguments-made-against-brexit-eu-referendum-campaign/
• Ross, Daniel (2018). Small corpora and low-frequency phenomena: try and beyond contemporary, standard English. Corpus, 18 http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/3574
• Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Annalisa Baicchi (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In Istvan Kecskés and Laurence Horn (eds), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects (pp. 95–127). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Santiago, J., Lupiáñez, J., Pérez, E., & Funes, M. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14: 512–516
• Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 9–36). Boston, MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.
• Schnapper, Pauline (2018). Brexit, or Theresa May’s headache. Observatoire de la Société Britannique 21: 21–34.
• Searle, John (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.
• Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ada Ren, Mili Mathew, Yvan Yuen, and Katherine Demuth (2016). Non-referential gestures in adult and child speech: Are they prosodic? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), Vol. Baixas. pp. 836–839.
• Steen, Francis and Mark Turner (2013). Multimodal Construction Grammar. In Michael Borkent, Barbara Dancygier, and Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the Creative Mind (pp. 255–274). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
• Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg (eds), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Szymanek, Bogdan (2015). Remarks on tautology in word-formation. In Laurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy, and Pavol Štekauer (eds.), Semantics of Complex Words [Studies in Morphology 3] (pp. 143–161). New York: Springer.
• Valenzuela, Javier, Joseph Hilferty and Mar Garachana (2005). On the reality of constructions. The Spanish reduplicative-topic construction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 201–215.
• van Dijk, Teun A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11: 11–52.
• Vassilaki, Evgenia (2017). Cognitive motivation in the linguistic realization of requests in Modern Greek. In Angeliki Athanasiadou (ed.), Studies in Figurative Thought and Language (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Vigliocco, Gabriella, Pamela Perniss, and David Vinson (2014). Language as a multimodal phenomenon: Implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369(1651): 20130292. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0292
• Ward, Gregory L., and Julia Hirschberg (1991). A pragmatic analysis of tautological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 15.6: 507–520.
• Wierzbicka, Anna (1987). Boys will be boys: 'Radical semantics' vs. 'radical pragmatics'. Language 63.2: 95–114.
• Wincott, Daniel, John Peterson, and Alan Convery (2017). Introduction: Studying Brexit’s causes and consequences. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19.3: 429-433. Special issue on Brexit.
• Ziem, Alexander (2017). Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095