Abadi, Adina. 1990. ‘The speech act of apology in political life.’ Journal of Pragmatics 14 (3), 467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abrahams, Roger D. 1962. ‘Playing the dozens.’The Journal of American Folklore 75, 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adolph, Robert. 1968. The Rise of Modern Prose Style. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Allan, Keith. 1992. ‘Something that rhymes with rich.’ In Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.). Frames, Fields and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, N.J., Hove, London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 355–74.Google Scholar

Allan, Keith. 2000. ‘Quantity implicatures and the lexicon.’ In Peeters, Bert (ed.). The Lexicon-encyclopedia Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 169–217.Google Scholar

Anderson, Kristin and Leaper, Campbell. 1998. ‘Emotion talk between same- and mixed-gender friends: Form and function.’ Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17 (4), 419–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Ducrot, Oswald. 1983. L'argumentation dans la Langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar

Antor, Heinz. 1998. ‘Satire und Science Fiction in den Unterhaltungsromanen von Douglas Adams.’ In Petzold, Dieter and Späth, Eberhardt (eds.). Unterhaltungsliteratur der Achtziger und Neunziger Jahre. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg, 173–99.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 2002. ‘The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning.’ Journal of Pragmatics 34, 361–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristotle, . The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric, trans. Freese, J. H.. 1991. The Loeb Classical Library No. 193. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Arndt, Horst and Janney, Richard W.. 1987. InterGrammar. Toward an Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in Speech. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arndt, Horst and Janney, Richard W.. 1991. ‘Verbal and prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech.’ Journal of Pragmatics 15 (6), 521–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnovick, Leslie. 1999. Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 1995. ‘Context and Contextualization.’ In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola and Blommaert, Jan (eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics 1995. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1–19.Google Scholar

Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert M.. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barbe, Katharina. 1995. Irony in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertau, Karl. 1994. ‘Der Ritter auf dem halben Pferd oder die Wahrheit der Hyperbel.’ Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 116 (2), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. ‘Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.’ Text 9 (1), 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1992. ‘The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries.’ In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 688–704.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blair, Walter. 1984. ‘A German connection: Raspe's Baron Munchhausen.’ In Clark, William Bedford (ed.), Critical Essay on American Humor. Boston: Hall, 123–39.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Neutrality, Norm and Bias. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Bosma, Bette. 1992. ‘Tales of humor and exaggeration.’ In Schmidt, Gary D. and Gettinga, Donald R. (eds.), Sitting at the Feet of the Past: Retelling the North American Folktale for Children. Westport: Greenwood, 209–16.Google Scholar

Bowers, John Waite, Metts, Sandra M. and Duncanson, W. Thomas. 1985. ‘Emotion and interpersonal communication.’ In Knapp, M. L. and Miller, G. R. (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage, 500–50.Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. ‘Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel. 2007. ‘The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics.’ In Taavitsainen, Irma and Fitzmaurice, Susan (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 37–80.Google Scholar

Brown, Bahngrell W. 1974. ‘Language, semantics, hyperbole, evolution, and the literature of science.’ Southern Quarterly 12, 287–94.Google Scholar

Brown, Carolyn S. 1987. The Tall Tale in American Folklore and Literature. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burnard, Lou (ed.). 2000. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (World Edition). (BNC CD-ROM). Humanities Computing Unit of Oxford University.

Burridge, Kate. 1998. ‘Euphemism with attitude: Politically charged language change.’ In Schmid, Monika S., Austin, Jennifer R. and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 57–76.Google Scholar

Busse, Dietrich. 1991. ‘Konventionalisierungsstufen des Zeichengebrauchs als Ausgangspunkt semantischen Wandels.’ In Busse, Dietrich (ed.), Diachrone Semantik und Pragmatik. Untersuchungen zur Erklärung und Beschreibung des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caffi, Claudia and Janney, Richard W.. 1994. ‘Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication.’ Journal of Pragmatics 22, 325–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caron, James E. 1986. ‘The violence and language of swapping lies: Towards a definition of American tall tale.’ Studies in American Humor 5 (1), 27–37.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald. 2004. Language and Creativity. The Art of Common Talk. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Rhetorical Treatises. Vols. II, III, IV and V. The Loeb Classical Library Nos 386, 348, 349, 342. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press.

Claridge, Claudia. 2007. ‘The superlative in spoken English.’ In Facchinetti, Roberta (ed.), Corpus Linguistics Twenty-five Years On. Selected Papers of the Twenty-fifth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora. 2007. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 121–48.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. and Gerrig, Richard J.. 1983. ‘Understanding old words with new meanings.’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22, 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert and Gerrig, R.. 1984. ‘On the pretense theory of irony.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 121–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clift, Rebecca. 1999. ‘Irony in conversation.’ Language in Society 28, 523–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Colston, Herbert L. 1997. ‘“I've never seen anything like it”: Overstatement, understatement, and irony.’ Metaphor and Symbol 12 (1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Colston, Herbert L. and Keller, Shauna B.. 1998. ‘You'll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27 (4), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coseriu, Eugenio (ed. Heinrich Weber). 1988. Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens. Tübingen: Francke.

Coulson, Seana. 2004. ‘Electrophysiology and pragmatic language comprehension.’ In Noveck, Ira A. and Sperber, Dan (eds.). 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 187–206.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2005. ‘A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements.’ In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margaret (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 257–88.Google Scholar

Cowie, A. P., Mackin, R. and McCaig, I. R.. 1983. Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol 2: Phrase, Clause and Sentence Idioms. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. ‘Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.’ Journal of Pragmatics 25, 349–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, Bousfield, Derek and Wichmann, Anne. 2003. ‘Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects.’ Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1545–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2000. ‘Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (2), 175–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curtius, Ernst Robert. 1978. Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, 9th edn. Bern/München: Francke.Google Scholar

Daneš, Frantisek. 1994. ‘Involvement with language and in language.’ Journal of Pragmatics 22, 251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devos, Filip. 2003. ‘Semantic vagueness and lexical polyvalence.’ Studia Linguistica 57 (3), 121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dirven, René and Verspoor, Marjolin. 1998. Cognitive Explorations of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982. Where have All the Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij and Piirainen, Elisabeth. 2005. Figurative Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Drew, Paul. 2003. ‘Precision and exaggeration in interaction.’ American Sociological Review 68, 917–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, Paul. 2005. ‘The interactional generation of exaggerated versions in conversations.’ In Hakulinen, Auli and Selting, Margret (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 233–55.Google Scholar

Dubois, Jean, Lagane, René and Lerond, Alain. 1971. Dictionnaire du Français Classique. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1973. La Preuve et le Dire. Paris: Maison Mame.Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. Duden. Deutsches Universalwörterbuch, 4th edn 2001. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

Edwards, Derek. 2000a. ‘Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (4), 347–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, Derek. 2000b. ‘Discursive psychology.’ In Fitch, K. and R. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 257–73.Google Scholar

Edwards, Viv and Sienkewicz, Thomas J.. 1990. Oral Cultures Past and Present: Rappin' and Homer. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne and Slade, Diana. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London/Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. and Kiss, Katalin É.. 2000. ‘On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 417–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. ‘Pragmatic scales and logical structure.’ Linguistic Inquiry 6 (3), 353–75.Google Scholar

Feyarts, Kurt. 1999. ‘Metonymic hierarchies: The conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions.’ In Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Radden, Günter (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 309–32.Google Scholar

Fiehler, Reinhard. 1990. Kommunikation und Emotion. Theoretische und empirische Untersuchungen zur Rolle von Emotionen in der verbalen Interaktion. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1977. ‘Scenes-and-frames semantics.’ In Zampolli, Antonio (ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 55–81.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1985. ‘Frames and the semantics of understanding.’ Quaderni di Semantica 6 (2), 222–54.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles and Atkins, Beryl T.. 1992. ‘Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbours.’ In Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organisation. Hillsdale, Hove, London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 75–102.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward. 1995. ‘Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction.’ In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 1–15.Google Scholar

Fogelin, Robert J. 1988. Figuratively Speaking. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Fritz, Gerd. 1998. Historische Semantik. Weimar: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fritz, Gerd. 2005. Einführung in die historische Semantik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gans, Eric. 1975. ‘Hyperbole et ironie.’ Poétiques: Revue des Théories et d'Analyse Littéraires 24, 488–94.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993. ‘Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries.’ Cognitive Linguistics 4–3, 223–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Geis, Michael L. 1987. The Language of Politics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. 2002. ‘A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated.’ Journal of Pragmatics 34, 457–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W, Legitt, John S., and Turner, Elizabeth A.. 2002. ‘What's special about figurative language in emotional communication?’ In Fussell, Susan R. (ed.), The Verbal Communication of Emotions: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 125–49.Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 1997. ‘Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis.’ Cognitive Linguistics 8 (3), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. Glencoe: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1979. ‘Footing.’ Semiotica 25 (1–2), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gréciano, Gertrud. 1988. ‘Affektbedingter Idiomgebrauch.’ In Sandig, Barbara (ed.), Stilistisch-rhetorische Diskursanalyse. Tübingen: Narr, 49–61.Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Grobmann, Neil. 1977. ‘Melville's use of tall tale humour.’ Southern Folklore Quarterly 41, 183–94.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1980. ‘Dictionaries and encyclopedias.’ Lingua 50, 329–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John. 1990. ‘Sarcasm as theater.’ Cognitive Linguistics 1, 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Harris, Leslie A. 1988. ‘Litotes and superlative in Beowulf.’ English Studies 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Robert. 1990. ‘The purpose and method of satire.’ Online: www3.telus.net/eddyelmer/Tools/satire.htm (accessed 31 March 2007).

Hartung, Wolfdietrich. 1996. ‘Die Bearbeitung von Perspektiven-Divergenzen durch das Ausdrücken von Gereiztheit.’ In Kallmeyer, Werner (ed.), Gesprächsrhetorik. Tübingen: Narr, 119–89.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm; Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Hegerfeldt, Anne. 2005. Lies that Tell the Truth. Magic Realism Seen through Contemporary Fiction from Britain. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Held, Gudrun. 1989. ‘On the role of maximization in verbal politeness.’ Multilingua 8, 167–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschberg, Julia. 1991. A Theory of Scalar Implicature. New York/London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2000. ‘Using the OED quotations database as a corpus – a linguistic appraisal.’ ICAME Journal 28, 17–30.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘On some principles of grammaticization.’ In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 17–35.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence. 1984. ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature.’ In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence. 2006. ‘Implicature.’ In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

House, Juliane and Kasper, Gabriele. 1981. ‘Politeness markers in English and German.’ In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton, 157–85.Google Scholar

Howell, Wilbur Samuell. 1956. Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500–1700. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar

Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hutcheon, Linda. 2000. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-century Art Forms. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Irvine, Judith T. 1990. ‘Registering affect: heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emotion.’ In Lutz, Catherine A. and Abu-Lughod, Lila (eds.), Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge University Press, 126–61.Google Scholar

Janney, Richard W. 1996. Speech and Affect: Emotive Uses of English. Munich: n.p.Google Scholar

Johnston, Ian. 1999. ‘Lecture on Swift's Gulliver's Travels.’ Available at: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/swift.htm (accessed 2 September 2010).

Jucker, Andreas H. 2000. ‘Slanders, slurs and insults on the road to Canterbury: Forms of verbal aggression in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.’ In Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu, Pahta, Päivi and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Placing Middle English in Context. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 369–89.Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge. (English translation of the first German edition of the following title.)Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 2003. Sprachwandel, 3rd edn. UTB (1st edn: 1990) Tübingen/Basel: Francke.Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi and Kirschbaum, Ilja. 2003. Bedeutungswandel. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, George A. 1998. Comparative Rhetoric. An Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koch, Peter. 2001. ‘Metonymy: Unity in diversity.’ Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 (2), 201–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koch, Peter and Österreicher, Wulf. 1996. ‘Sprachwandel und expressive Mündlichkeit.’ Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 102, 64–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 1988. The Language of Love. The Semantics of Passion in Conversational English. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar

Kreuz, Roger J. and Roberts, Richard M.. 1995. ‘Two cues for verbal irony: Hyperbole and the ironic tone of voice.’ Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreuz, Roger J., Roberts, Richard M., Johnson, Brenda K. and Bertus, Eugenie. 1996. ‘Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature.’ In Kreuz, Roger J. and MacNealy, M. S. (eds.), Empirical Approaches to Literature and Aesthetics. Norwood: Ablex, 83–97.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1984. ‘Intensity.’ In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 43–70.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. StanfordUniversity Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lausberg, Heinrich. 1960. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. München: Hueber.Google Scholar

Lausberg, Heinrich. 1990. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. 10th edn. Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1969. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The Study of Meaning. 2nd edn of above. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Culpeper, Jonathan. 1997. ‘The comparison of adjectives in recent British English.’ In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To Explain the Present. Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 353–73.Google Scholar

Legitt, John S. and Gibbs, Raymond W.. 2000. ‘Emotional reactions to verbal irony.’ Discourse Processes 29 (1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. ‘Three levels of meaning.’ In Palmer, F. R. (ed.), Grammar and Meaning. Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge University Press, 90–115.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention. A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Link, Kristen E. and Kreuz, Roger J.. 2005. ‘Do men and women differ in their use of nonliteral language when they talk about emotions?’ In Colston, Herbert L. and Katz, Albert N. (eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension. Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, N.J./London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 153–79.Google Scholar

Loftus, Elizabeth F. and Palmer, John C.. 1974. ‘Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory.’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13, 585–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Long, Debra L and Graesser, Arthur C.. 1988. ‘Wit and humor in discourse processing.’ Discourse Processes 11, 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Margalit, Avishai. 1976. ‘Vagueness in vogue.’ Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 33, 211–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marty, Anton. 1908. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle a.S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

McCarthy, Michael and Carter, Ronald. 2004. ‘’There's millions of them': Hyperbole in everyday conversation.' Journal of Pragmatics 36, 149–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McHugo, G. J., Smith, C. A. and Lanzetta, J. T.. 1982. ‘ The structure of self-reports of emotional responses to film segments.’ Motivation and Emotion 6, 365–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Menner, Robert J. 1945. ‘Multiple meaning and change of meaning in English.’ Language 21 (2), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Minsky, Marvin. 1977. ‘Frame-system theory.’ In Johnson-Laird, Philip N. and Wason, P. C. (eds.), Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press, 355–67.Google Scholar

Moon, Rosamund. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. ‘Lexis and semantics.’ In Lass, Roger (ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge University Press, 332–458.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2008. ‘Social variation in intensifier use: Constraint on –ly adverbialization in the past?’ English Language and Linguistics 12 (2), 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norrick, Neal R. 1982. ‘On the semantic of overstatement.’ In Detering, Klaus (ed.), Sprache Beschreiben und Erklären. Linguistisches Kolloquium 16, 1981, Kiel. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 168–76.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal R. 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal R. 2001. ‘Discourse and Semantics.’ In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah and Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 76–99.Google Scholar

Norrick, Neal R. 2004. ‘Hyperbole, extreme case formulation.’ Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1727–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noveck, Ira A. and Sperber, Dan (eds.). 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Nünning, Vera. 2001. ‘The invention of cultural traditions: The construction and destruction of Englishness and authenticity in Julian Barnes’ England, England.' Anglia 119: 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ortony, Andrew. 1975. ‘Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice.’ Educational Theory 25, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ortony, Andrew. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. 6th edn ed. Wehmeier, Sally. 2000. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ortony, Andrew. The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Edited by Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C.. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (3rd edn online: http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl).Google Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 2003. ‘Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really.’ In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 191–220.Google Scholar

Peleg, Orna, Giora, Rachel and Fein, Ofer. 2004. ‘Contextual strength: The whens and hows of context effects.’ In Noveck, Ira A. and Sperber, Dan (eds.), Experimental Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 172–86.Google Scholar

Peters, Hans. 1993. Die englischen Gradadverbien der Kategorie Booster. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Pethö, Gergely. 2001. ‘What is polysemy? – A survey of current research and results.’ In Einkö, Németh T. and Bibok, Károly (eds.), Pragmatics and the Flexibility of Word Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 175–224.Google Scholar

Pinkal, Manfred. 1980/1981. ‘Semantische Vagheit: Phänomene und Theorien, I & II.’ Linguistische Berichte 70, 1–26 and 72, 1–26.Google Scholar

Pinsker, Sanford. 1979. ‘The urban tall tale: Frontier humor in a contemporary key.’ In Blacher Cohen, Sarah (ed.), Comic Relief: Humor in Contemporary American Literature, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 249–62.Google Scholar

Plett, Heinrich F. 2000. Systematische Rhetorik. Konzepte und Analysen. München: Fink.Google Scholar

Pollio, Howard R. and Barlow, Jack M.. 1975. ‘A behavioural analysis of figurative language in psychotherapy: One session in a single case-study.’ Language and Speech 18, 236–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. ‘Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.’ Human Studies 9, 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Powell, Mava Jo. 1992. ‘Folk theories of meaning and principles of conventionality: Encoding literal attitude via stance adverb.’ In Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove, London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 333–53.Google Scholar

Prins, A. A. 1952. French influence in English Phrasing. Leiden: Universitaire Pers.Google Scholar

Puttenham, George. 1589. The arte of English poesie. Contriued into three bookes: the First of poets and poesie, the second of proportion, the third of ornament. London: Richard Field. (Accessed via EEBO: http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home)Google Scholar

Quintilian, Marcus Fabius. 1988. Ausbildung des Redners. Zwölf Bücher. (Latin and German), ed. Rahn, Helmut. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Radden, Günter and Kövecses, Zoltán. 1999. ‘Towards a theory of metonymy.’ In: Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Radden, Günter (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 17–59.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. ‘Syntax.’ In Lass, Roger (ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge University Press, 187–331.Google Scholar

Ross, James. 1992. ‘Semantic contagion.’ In Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organisation. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove, London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 143–69.Google Scholar

Rusiecki, Jan. 1985. Adjectives and Comparison in English. A Semantic Study. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Samuels, M. L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution. With Special Reference to English. Cambridge UniversityPress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schank, Roger C. and Abelson, Robert P.. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schemann, Hans. 1994. ‘Hyperbel und Grenzwert.’ In Sabban, Annette and Schmitt, Christian (eds.), Sprachlicher Alltag. Linguistik – Rhetorik – Literaturwissenschaft. Festschrift für Wolf-Dieter Stempel. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 499–502.Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar. 1988. Variabilität, Polysemie und Unschärfe der Wortbedeutung. Theoretische und methodische Grundlagen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selting, Margret. 1994. ‘Emphatic speech style – with special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation.’ Journal of Pragmatics 22, 375–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seto, Ken-ichi. 1998. ‘On non-echoic irony.’ In Carston, Robyn and Uchida, Seiji (eds.), Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 239–55.Google Scholar

Siporin, Steve. 2000. ‘Tall tales and sales.’ Stewart, Polly, Siporin, Steve, Sullivan, C. W. III and Jones, Suzi (eds.), Worldviews and the American West: The Life of the Place Itself. Logan: Utah State University Press, 87–106.Google Scholar

Smitherman, Geneva. 2000. Talkin that Talk: Language, Culture, and Education in African America. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1981. ‘Irony and the use-mention distinction.’ In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 295–318.Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986/1995. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1990. ‘Rhetoric and Relevance.’ In Wellbery, David and Bender, John (eds.), The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice. Stanford University Press, 140–55. (quoted from the version available at: http://sperber.club.fr/rhetoric.htm, accessed 14 February 2006)Google Scholar

Spitzbardt, Harry. 1963. ‘Overstatement and understatement in British and American English.’ Philologica Pragensia 6, 277–86.Google Scholar

Standop, Ewald. 1995. Aufsätze zur englischen Versdichtung: Von Chaucer bis Dylan Thomas. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar

Stanivukovic, Goran. 2007. ‘“Mounting above the truthe”: On hyperbole in English Renaissance literature.’ Forum for Modern Language Studies 43 (1), 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stempel, Wolf-Dieter. 1983. ‘“Ich vergesse alles”: Bemerkungen zur Hyperbolik in der Alltagsrhetorik.’ In Faust, Manfred, Harweg, Roland and Lehfeldt, Werner (eds.), Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Textlinguistik. Festschrift für Peter Hartmann. Tübingen: Narr, 87–98.Google Scholar

Stern, Gustav. 1931. Meaning and Change of Meaning. With Special Reference to the English Language. Göteborg: Elanders.Google Scholar

Strub, Christian. 1991. Kalkulierte Absurditäten. Freiburg/München: Karl Alber.Google Scholar

Swartz, Marc. 1976. ‘Hyperbole, politics and potent specification: The political uses of a figure of speech.’ In O'Barr, W. and O'Barr, J. (eds.), Language and Politics. The Hague: Mouton, 101–16.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma and Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007. ‘Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it.’ In Taavitsainen, Irma and Fitzmaurice, Susan (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 11–36.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma and Jucker, Andreas H.. 2007. ‘Speech act verbs and speech acts in the history of English.’ In Taavitsainen, Irma and Fitzmaurice, Susan (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 107–38.Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Thorne, Creath S. 1980. ‘The Crockett Almanacs: What makes a tall tale tall?’ Southern Folklore Quarterly 44, 93–104.Google Scholar

Tissari, Heli. 2003. LOVEscapes: Changes in Prototypical Senses and Cognitive Metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. ‘Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English.’ In Eckardt, Regine, Jaeger, Gerhard and Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Variation, Selection, Development. Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–52.Google Scholar

Trier, Jost. 1934. Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Utsumi, Akira. 2000. ‘Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: Distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony.’ Journal of Pragmatics 32 (12), 1777–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Veloudis, Ioannis. 1998. ‘“Quantifying” superlatives and homo sapiens.’ Journal of Semantics 15, 215–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wales, Katie. 1989. A Dictionary of Stylistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Weinrich, Harald. 1966. ‘Das Zeichen des Jonas: Über das sehr Große und das sehr Kleine in der Literatur.’ Merkur 20, 737–47.Google Scholar

Weinrich, Harald. 2000 (1966). Linguistik der Lüge. 6th edn. München: Beck.Google Scholar

Welsch, Roger. 1974. ‘Bigger'n Life: The tall tale postcard.’ Southern Folklore Quarterly 38, 311–23.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 1981. ‘On Grice's Theory of Conversation.’ In Werth, Paul (ed.), Conversation and Discourse. Structure and Interpretation. New York: St Martin's Press, 155–78.Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2006. ‘Relevance Theory.’ In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 607–32.Google Scholar

Wonham, Henry B. 1989. ‘In the name of wonder: The emergence of tall narrative in American writing.’ American Quarterly 41 (2), 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zajdman, Anat. 1995. ‘Humorous face-threatening acts: Humor as strategy.’ Journal of Pragmatics 23, 325–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold. 2005a. ‘Just between Dr. Language and I.’ Available at: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002386.html

Zwicky, Arnold. 2005b. ‘More illusions.’ Available at: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002407.html