Review published In:
Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Volume 7
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
[Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7] 2009
► pp. 334344
Black, M.
(1979) More about metaphor. In A. Ortony, (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 19–43). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2000) Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L. & M. Ramscar
(2002) The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. & C. Muller
(Eds.) (2008) Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The Poetics of Mind. Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. & B. Keysar
(1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 11, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z. & G. Radden
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson
(1980) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otal, J. L.
(2001) On high-level conceptual structure and discourse. RESLA, 141, 325–336.Google Scholar
Otal, J. L. & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza
(2007) Modelling thought in language use: At the crossroads between discourse, pragmatics, and cognition. Jezikoslovije, 8(2), 115–167.Google Scholar
Rohrer, T.
(2006) The body in space: Dimensions of embodiment. In J. Zlatev, T. Ziemke, R. Frank and R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, Language and Mind, vol. 21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & L. Perez
(2003) Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K. U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatics (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & J. L. Otal
(2002) Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & R. Mairal
(2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K-M. Kopcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & S. Pena
(2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations and projection spaces. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Pena (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
(1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Vol. 1: Concept Structuring System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tendahl, M. & R. W. Gibbs
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & R. Carston
(2008) Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevancetheoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 31, 1–40.Google Scholar