Literatura
1. Al Sharafi, A. g. M. (2004). Textual Metonymy, A Semiotic Approach. London:
Palgrave Macmillan
2. Allan, K., K Burridge (2006). Forbidden Words. New York: Cambridge University
Press
3. Allan, K., K. Burridge (1991). Euphemism & Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield
and Weapon. New York: Oxford University
4. Ayto, J. (1993). Euphemisms. London: Bloomsbury
5. Barcelona Sánchez, A. (1997). “Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and
metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics.” Atlantis (XIX). 21-48.
6. Barcelona, A. (2003). “Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and
metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update“. Dirven, R., Pörings R. (Ur.),
Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Cognitive Linguistics Research
20, str. 207–277. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Barcelona, A. (2003). “The case for a metonymic bases of pragmatic inferencing:
Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes”. Panther, K., Thornburg, L.L. Metonymy
and Pragmatic Inferencing. str. 81-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
8. Barcelona, A. (2011). „Rewieving the properties and prototype structure of
metonymy“. Benczes, R., Barcelona, A., de Mendoza Ibáñez, J.R., (ur.) Defining
Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View, str. 7-60.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
9. Bartsch, R. (2003). „Generating polysemy: Metaphor and metonymy.“ Dirven, R., R.
Pörings (ur.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. str. 49-74. Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
10. Bertram, A. (1998). NTC’s Dictionary of Euphemisms, The Most Practical Guide to
Unraveling Euphemisms. Chicago: NTC Publishing Group
11. Brdar, M. J. Zlomislić, D. Šoštarić, A. Vančura (2009). „From Metaphorical Banana
Skins to Metonymic Rittbergers: On Two Types of Polysemy.“ Brdar, M., M. Omazić,
V.
12. Pavičić Takač (ur.) Cognitive Approaches to English: Fundamental, Methodological,
Interdisciplinary and Applied Aspects. str. 153-71. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing
13. Brdar, M., M. Omazić, V. Pavičić Takač (ur.) (2009). Cognitive Approaches to
English: Fundamental, Methodological, Interdisciplinary and Applied Aspects..
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
14. 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.”
Burkhardt, A., B. Nerlich (ur.) Tropical Truth(s).Epistmology of Metaphor and other
Tropes. str. 383-427. Göttingen: De Gruyter
15. Brdar-Szabó, R., Brdar, M. (2011). “What do metonymic chains reveal about the
nature of metonymy?” Benczes, R., A. Barcelona, de Mendoza Ibáñez, J.R. (ur.)
Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View, str. 217248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
16. Brown, K. (ur.) (2006). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam:
Elsevier
17. Brozović-Rončević, D., M. Žic Fuchs (2005). “Metafora i metonimija kao poticaj u
procesu imenovanja.” Folia Onomastica Croatica 12-13: 91-104.
18. Burchfield, R. (1985). „An Outline History of Euphemiskms in English.“ Enright, D.
J. (ur.) Fair of Speech, The Uses of Euphemism. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press
19. Burridge, K. (2006). „Taboo Words.“ Brown, K. (ur.) The Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics. Volume 10. 2nd edition. str. 452-5. Oxford: Elsevier
20. Cacciari, C. (1998). “Why Do We Speak Metaphorically: Reflections on the Functions
of Metaphor in Discourse and Reasoning.” Katz, Albert N., C. Cacciari, R.W. Gibbs,
Jr., M. Turner (ur.): Figurative Language and Thought. str. 119-57. New York: Oxford
University Press
21. Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene (The Politics of Language). London and New
York: Routledge
22. Cameron, L. (2008). “Metaphor and Talk.” Gibbs, R. (ur.) Metaphor and Thought. str.
197-211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
23. Carver, T., J. Pikalo (ur.) (2008). Political Language and Metaphor, Interpreting and
changing the world. London and New York: Routledge
24. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric, The Persuasive Power of
Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
25. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse, Theory and Practice. New York:
Routledge
26. Chilton, P.A., C. Schaffner (ur.) (2002). Politics as Text and Talk, Analytic
Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
27. Cienki, A. (2005). „Researching conceptual metaphors that (may) underlie political
discourse.“ ECPR Workshop on Metaphor in Political Science. Greanda, Spain
28. Cienki, A. (2007). „Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and Domains.“ Geeraerts,
D., Cuyckens, H. (ur.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. str. 170-87.
New York: Oxford University Press
29. Cienki, A. (2008.) “The application of conceptual metaphor theory to political
discourse, Methodological questions and some possible solutions.” Carver, T., J.
Pikalo. Political Language and Metaphor, Interpreting and changing the world. str.
241-56. London and New York: Routledge
30. Coulson, S. (2006). “Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric and ideology”.
Kristiansen, G., M. Archard, R. Dirven, F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibáñez (ur.) Cognitive
Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. str. 187-208. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter
31. Crespo Fernández, E. (2005). “Euphrmistic strategies in politeness and face concerns.”
Pragmalinguistics 13. 77-86.
32. Croft, W. (2003). „The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and
metonymies“ Dirven, R., R. Pörings (ur.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison
and Contrast. str. 161-205. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
33. Croft, W., D. A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
34. Dedaić, M. N. (2006). „Political Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation.“ Brown, K.
(ur.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume 10. 2nd edition. str. 7007. Oxford: Elsevier
35. Dirven, R. (2003.): „Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of
conceptualisation.“ Dirven, R., R. Pörings (ur.) Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast. str. 75-111. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
36. Dirven, R., R. Pörings (2003). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
37. Dunn, C.W., J.D: Woodard (2003.). The Conservative Tradition in America.
Maryland: Rowmann & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
38. Edwards J. A. (2008). Navigating the Post-Cold War World, President Clinton’s
Foreign Policy Rhetoric. Lanham: Lexington Books
39. El-Hussari, I. A. (2010). „President Bush's address to the nation on U.S: policy in Iraq:
A critical discourse analysis approach.“ Okulska, U., P. Cap (ur.) (2010). Perspectives
in Politics and Discourse. str. 99-117. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company
40. Enright, D. J. (ur.) (1985). Fair of Speech, The Uses of Euphemism. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press
41. Evans, V., M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics, An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press
42. Fairclough, N. (2006). „Genres in Political Discourse.“ Brown, K. (ur.) The
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume 10. 2nd edition. str. 32-8. Oxford:
Elsevier
43. Fauconnier, G., M. Turner (1999). „Metonymy and Conceptual Integration.“ Panther,
K., G. Radden (ur.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins
44. Fillmore, C. J. (1975). „An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning.“
Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 123-31.
45. Fillmore, C. J. (1976). "Frame semantics and the nature of language." Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of
Language and Speech. 280 (1976): 20-32.
46. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). „Frame Semantics.“ Linguistics in the Morning Calm,
Seleceted Papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company
47. Frazer, J.G. (1911). Taboo and the Perils of the Soul. London and Basingstoke:
Macmillan
48. Frazer, Sir J. G. (1911). The Golden Bough Part II: Taboo and The Perils of the Soul.
London: Macmillan
49. Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H. (ur.) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press
50. Gibbs, R. (2007). “Experimental test of figurative meaning construction”. Radden, G.,
Köpcke, K., Berg, T., Siemund, P. (ur.) Aspects of Meaning Construction. str. 19-32.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
51. Gibbs, R. W. (1998). “The Fight Over Metaphor in Thought and Language.” Katz,
Albert N., C. Cacciari, R.W. Gibbs, Jr., M. Turner (ur.) Figurative Language and
Thought. str. 88-118. New York: Oxford University Press
52. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
53. Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. (2005). „Euphemisms in the language of politics or how
metonymy opens one door but closes the other.“. Cap, P. (ur.). Pragmatics Today. str.
287-299. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang
54. Gradečak-Erdeljić, T., M. Varga (2009). “Jezik kao izvozni proizvod - Engleski
eufemizmi u hrvatskom političkom diskursu”. Granić, J. (ur.). Jezična politika i
jezična stvarnost. str. 339-48. Zagreb: HDPL
55. Gradečak-Erdeljić, T., Milić, G. (2011). „Metonymy at the crossroads, A cas of
euphemisms and dysphemisms“. Bencses, Réka, A. Barcelona, F.J.R. de Mendoza
Ibáňez (ur.). Defning Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view.
Str. 147-165. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
56. Hart, C. (2005). “Analysing Political Discourse: Toward a Cognitive Approach”.
Critical Discourse Studies 2(2), 189-94.
57. Hilpert, M. (2007). “Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar, A cross-linguistic
perspective on body part terms.” Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, T., Siemund, P.
(ur.) Aspects of Meaning Construction. str. 78-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
58. Hilpert, N. (2006). “Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns.”
Steafnowitsch, A., S., T. Gries. (ur.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and
Metonymy. str. 123-51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
59. Holder, R.W. ( 2002). How not to say what you mean, A Dictionary of Euphemisms.
New York: Oxford University Press
60. Jakobson, R. (1956). „The metaphoric and metonymic poles.“ Dirven, R., R. Pörings
(ur.) (2003). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. str. 41-7. Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
61. Katz, Albert N., C. Cacciari, R.W. Gibbs, Jr., M. Turner (1998). Figurative Language
and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press
62. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press
63. Kövocses, Z. (2008). “Conceptual metaphor theory. Some criticism and alternative
proposls.” Burkhardt, A.,B. Nerlich (ur.) Tropical Truth(s). The Epistemology of
Metaphor and Other Tropes. str. 168-84. Berlin: De Gruyter
64. Kristiansen, G., M. Archard, R. Dirven, F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibáñez (ur.) (2006).
Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin and New
York: Mouton de Gruyter
65. Kuna, B. (2007). „Identifikacija eufemizama i njihova tvorba u hrvatskom jeziku.“
Flumensia, god. 19 (2007) br. 1, 95-113.
66. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
67. Lakoff, G. (1991). “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in
the Gulf.” Draft of January 1.
<http://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/metaphor-and-war-the-metaphorsystem-used-to-justify-war-in-the-gulf-lakoff-1991.pdf>
68. Lakoff, G. (1993). “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” Ortony, A. (ur.)
Metaphor and Thought. str. 202-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
69. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics, How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press
70. Lakoff, G. (2006.). Thinking Points. Communicating Our American Values and
Vision, A Progressive's Handbook. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
71. Lakoff, G. (2007). „What Orwell Didn't Know About the Brain, the Mind and
Language.“ Szántó, A. (ur.): What Orwell Didn't Know, Propaganda and the New
Face of American Politics. str. 67-74. New York: Public Affairs
72. Lakoff, G. (2008). The Political Mind¸Why You Can't Understand 21st Century
American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. New York: Viking
73. Lakoff, G., M. Johnson (1980). Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language. The
Journal of Philosophy., Volume 77, Issue 8: 453-486.
74. Lakoff, G., M. Johnson (1980a). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press
75. Lakoff, G., M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh, The embodied mind and its
challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books
76. Lakoff, G., M. Turner (1989). More than Cool Reason Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press
77. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
78. Langacker, R. W. (1993). “Reference-point constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 4-1:
171-202
79. Langacker, R., W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar, A Basic Introduction Oxford: Oxford
University Press
80. Lutz, W. D. (1999). Doublespeak Defined: Cut Through the Bull**** and Get the
Point. New York: HarperResource
81. McGlone, M. S., A. Batchelor (2003). “Looking Out for Number One: Euphemism
and Face”. Journal of Communication, June 2003. 251-64.
82. McNair, B. (2011). Introduction to Political Communication, 2nd Edition. London and
New York: Routledge
83. Mihas, E. (2005) “Non-Literal Language in Political Discourse”. LSO Working Papers
on Linguistics: Proceedings of WIGL 2005, 124-39.
84. Mussolf, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse. New York: Palgrave
Macmillanž
85. Neaman J.S., C.G. Silver (1983).A Dictionary of Euphemisms. London: Hamish
Hamilton
86. Neamann, J. S., C. G. Silver (1990). The Wordsworth Book of Euphemism.
Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Reference
87. Neamann, J. S., C. G. Silver (1991). Kind Words, A Thesaurus of Euphemisms. New
York: First Avon Books Trade Printing
88. Oakley, T. (2005). „Force-dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect.“ Hampe, B. (ur.)
From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter
89. Okulska, U., P. Cap (ur.) (2010). Perspectives in Politics and Discourse.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
90. Olive, D. (2008). An American Story, The Speeches of Barack Obama. Toronto: ECW
Press
91. Ortony, A. (ur.) (1993). Metaphor and Thought. Cambidge: Cambridge University
Press
92. Orwell, G. (1946). “Politics and the English Language”. Orwell, S., Angus, I. (ur.) The
Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume IV, In Front of
Your Nose 1945-1950. str. 127-40. London: Secker & Warburg
93. Panther, K. (2005). “The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction”. De
Mendoza, F. R., Pena, M.S. (ur.) Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and
Interdisciplinary Interaction. str. 353-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
94. Panther, K. U. (2006). “Metonymy as a usage event.” Kristiansen, G., M. Archard, R.
Dirven, F. J. R. de Mendoza Ibáñez (ur.) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications
and Future Perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
95. Panther, K. U., L. L. Thornburg (ur.) (2003). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
96. Panther, K., G. Radden (ur.) (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
97. Panther, K., L. L. Thornburg (2007). “Metonymy”. Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H. (ur.)
The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. str. 236-63. New York: Oxford
University Press
98. Pasini, D. (2005). “Eufemizmi u Anićevu rječniku”. Flumensia, god. 17, br. 2, .59-66.
99. Peirsman, Y., D. Geeraerts (2006). “Metonymy as a prototypical category”. Cognitive
Linguistics 17-3:269-316.
100.
Pfaff, K. L., R. W. Gibbs, M. D. Johnson (1997). “Metaphor in using and
understanding euphemisms and dysphemism.” Applied Psycholinguistics 18: 59-83.
101.
Radden, G. (2008). „The Cognitive Approach to Language.“ Andor, J., B.
Holló, Laczkó, T. (ur.) When Grammar Minds Language and Literatura: Festschrift
for Prof. Béla Korponay on the Occasion of his 80th Bortday, 387-412. Debrecen:
Institute of English and American Studies
102.
Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, T., Siemund, P. (ur.) (2007). Aspects of
Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
103.
Radden, G., R. Dirven (2007). Cognitive English Grammar.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam
104.
207
105.
Radden, G., Z. Kövecses (1999). „Towards a Theory of Metonymy“.
Metonymy in Language and Thought, str. 17-59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
106.
Rawson, H. (1981). A Dictionary of Euphemism & Other Doubletalk. New
York: Crown Publishers, Inc.
107.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). „The conduit metaphor -- a case of frame conflict in our
language about language.“ Ortony, A. (ur.) Metaphor and thought. str. 284-97.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
108.
Reisigl, M. (2006). „Rhetorical Tropes in Political Discourse“. Brown, K. (ur.)
The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume 10. 2nd edition. str. 596-605.
Oxford: Elsevier
109.
Rountree, C. (2011.). George W. Bush. A Biography. Greenwood: Santa
Barbara
110.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., H. E. Hamilton (2001). The Handbook Of
Disccourse Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishers
111.
Seana Coulson: Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric and ideology IN
Christiansen, Achaard, Dirven: Applications of Cogntive Linguistics (2006.)
112.
Sornig, K. (1989). “Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion”.
Wodak, R. (ur). Language, Power and Ideology, Studies in Political Discourse. str. 95113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
113.
Spears, R. A. (2001). Slang and Euphemism, A dictionary of oaths, curses,
insults, ethnic slurs, sexual slang and metaphor, drug talk, college lingo, and related
matters. London: Signet
114.
Sperber, D., D. Wilson (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing
115.
Starr, P. (2007). Freedom's Power. The History and Promise of Liberalism.
New York: Basic Books
116.
Steafnowitsch, A., S., T. Gries. (ur.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor
and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
117.
Szántó, A. (ur.): What Orwell Didn't Know, Propaganda and the New Face of
American Politics. New York: Public Affairs
118.
Taylor, R. T. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press
119.
Truszczyńska, A. (2003). „Conceptual Metonymy – The Problem of
Boundaries in the Light of ICMs.“ Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 38,
2002/2003. 221-237, Poznań: School of English, Adam Mickiewocz University
120.
Van Dijk, T. (2002). „Political discourse and ideology.“ Lorda, C. U., M. Ribas
(ur.) Anàlisi del discurs polític. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 15-34.
121.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). „Politics, Ideology and Discourse.“ Brown, K. (ur.)
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. str. 728-40. Amsterdam: Elsevier
122.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2002). “Political discourse and political cognition”. Chilton,
P., Schäffner, C. (ur.) Politics as Text and Talk, Analytic approaches to political
discourse. str. 203-37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
123.
Warren B. (1992). “What Euphemisms Tell us About the Interpretation of
Words”. Studia Linguistica 46 (2):128-72.
124.
Warren, B. (1999). “Aspects of Referential Metonymy.” Panther, K., G.
Radden (ur.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
125.
Warren, B. (2003). „An alternative account of the interpretation of referential
metonymy and metaphor.“ Dirven, R., R. Pörings (ur.) Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast. str. 113-130. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
126.
Warren, B. (2006). “Referential Metonymy”. Manuscript version of
monograph published in: Scripta Minora, 2003-4, Lund: Royal Society of Letters
127.
Wilson, J. (2001). „Political discourse.“ Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., H. E.
Hamilton. The Handbook Of Disccourse Analysis. str. 398-415. Malden: Blackwell
Publishers
128.
Wodak, R. (ur.) (1989) Language, Power and Ideology, Studies in Political
Discourse., Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company
129.
Wodak, R., P. A. Chilton (ur.) (2005). A New Agenda in (critical) Discourse
Analysis, Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
130.
Wodak, R., R. de Cilia (2006). „Politics and Language. Overview.“ K. (ur.)
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. str. 707-19. Amsterdam: Elsevier