Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2018) ► pp. 376409


Abdel-Raheem, A.
(2017) Decoding images: Toward a theory of pictorial framing. Discourse & Society, 28(4), 327–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018)  Multimodal humor: Integrating Blending Model, Relevance Theory, and Incongruity Theory. Multimodal Communication, 7(1), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R.
(1993) Representation, illusion, and cinema. Cinema Journal, 32 (2), 21–48. Retrieved from: http://​ncadjarmstrong​.com​/year​-3​-postmodern​-moving​/representation​-illusion​-and​.pdf. Crossref
(1995) Projecting illusion: Film spectatorship and the impression of reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asmolovskaya, Y.
(2009) Conceptual blending in jokes. Norderstedt: Grin Verlag.Google Scholar
Attardo, S.
(1990) The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes. In K. Hall, J. P. Koenig, M. Meacham, S. Reinman, & L. Sutton (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 355–362). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2017) Humour and pragmatics. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 174–188). New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bache, C.
(2005) Constraining conceptual integration theory: levels of blending and disintegration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1615–1635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R.
(1986 [1964]) Rhetoric of the image. Trans. by Richard Howard. In: The Responsibility of Forms (pp. 21–40). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bateman, J.
(2017) Intermediality in film: A blending-based perspective. In J. Wildfeuer, & J. Bateman (Eds.), Film text analysis: new perspectives on the analysis of filmic meaning (pp. 141–162). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berger, A. A.
(1993) An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bing, J., & Scheibman, J.
(2014) Blended spaces as subversive feminist humor. In D. Chairo, & R. Baccolini (Eds.), Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives (pp. 13–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blair, R.
(2008) The actor, image and action. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009) Cognitive neuroscience and acting: Imagination, conceptual blending, and empathy. TDR: The Drama Review, 53(4), 92–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Stanislavsky and cognitive science. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3), 10–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bortoluzzi, M.
(2009) An inconvenient truth: Multimodal emotions in identity construction. In J. Vincent, & L. Forunati (Eds.), Electronic emotion: The mediation of emotion via information and communication technologies (pp. 137–164). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Braha, Y., Byrne, B.
(2011) Creative motion graphic titling: Titling with motion graphics for film. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brecht, B.
(1964) Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, ed. and trans. J. Willett, New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
(1970) Űber Experimentelles Theater. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Brickman, B. J.
(2012) New American teenagers: The lost generation of youth in 1970s film. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Brockett, G., Ball, J., Fleming, J., & Carlson, A.
(2014) The essential theatre. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Brown, T.
(2012) Breaking the fourth wall: Direct address in the cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Burnett, D.
(2014, April 2). Body swapping: the science behind the switch. The Guardian. Retrieved from 10/10/2016: https://​www​.theguardian​.com​/science​/brain​-flapping​/2014​/apr​/02​/body​-swapping​-the​-science​-behind​-the​-switch
Carnicke, S. M.
(2000) Stanislavsky’s System. In A. Hodge (Ed.), Twentieth century actor training (pp. 11–36). London. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2009) Stanislavsky in focus: An acting master for the twenty-first century. London. Routledge.Google Scholar
Chekhov, M.
(1985) To the actor. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cone, E.
(1974) The composer’s voice. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Coulson, S.
(2001) Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Reasoning and rhetoric: Conceptual blending in political and religious rhetoric. In E. Oleksy, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Research and scholarship in integration processes (pp. 59–88). Lodz, Poland: Lodz University Press.Google Scholar
(2005a) What’s so funny? Cognitive semantics and jokes. Cognitive Psychopathology/Psicopatologia Cognitive, 2(3), 67–78.Google Scholar
(2005b) Extemporaneous blending: conceptual integration in humorous discourse from talk radio. Style, 39, 107–122.Google Scholar
Dannenberg, H.
(2012) Fleshing out the blend: The representation of counterfactuals in alternate history in print, film, and television narratives. In M. Hartner & R. Schneider (Eds.), Blending and the study of narrative (Narratologia, vol. 34) (pp. 121–146). Hawthorne, NY: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dickey, M. D.
(2015) Aesthetics and design for game-based learning. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N.
(2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M.
(2011a) Blending the Incongruity-Resolution Model and the Conceptual Integration Theory: The case of blends in pictorial advertising. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 59–83. Crossref.Google Scholar
(2011b) ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6), 1628–1644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse. The European Journal of Humor Research, 1, 22–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Is there a humour in your humour? On misunderstanding and miscommunication in conversational humour. In R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing intercultural pragmatics: Cognitive, linguistic and sociopragmatic perspectives on language use (pp. 55–78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
El Refaie, E.
(2011) The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(1), 87–108. (10.1515/HUMR.2011.005) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J.
(2011) A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(2005) Compression and emergent structure. Language and Linguistics, 4(6), 523–538.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2000) Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3–4), 283–304.Google Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2003) Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en communication: Sémiotique Cognitive, 19, 57–86.Google Scholar
Fischer, D.
(2000) Science fiction film directors, 1895–1998. North Carolina, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M.
(2015) Blending in Cartoons: The Production of Comedy. In L. Zunshine (Ed.), The oxford handbook of cognitive literary studied (pp. 155–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, C.
(2004) Review of Fauconnier and Turner (2002). Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 83–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Relevance Theory as a model for multimodal communication. In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual Communication (pp. 51–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2016a) Visual and multimodal metaphor in film: charting the field.” In K. Fahlenbrach (Ed.), Embodied metaphors in film, television and video games: Cognitive approaches (pp. 17–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016b) Conceptual metaphor theory, blending theory, and other cognitive perspectives on comics. In N. Cohn (Ed.), The visual narrative (pp. 89–110). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
French, R.
(1995) The subtlety of sameness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H., & Coupland, N.
(1991) Language: Contexts and consequences. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1974) Frame analysis: An easy on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gordejuela, A.
(2017, July). Joint attention in the construction of film flashbacks. Paper presented at the 14th International Cognitive Linguistics Association conference, Tartu, Estonia.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T.
(1994) Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J.
(2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J.
(2009) The Russian pre-theatrical actor and the Stanislavsky System. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from 14/01/2018: https://​pdfs​.semanticscholar​.org​/7a6c​/3b5ad0240af3175f5b451fec3ae78dea3d5d​.pdf
(2010) Stanislavsky and cognitive science. TDR: The Drama Review, 54 (3), 9–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holden, S.
(2002, December 13) She’s a sweetheart, then presto! she’s a sweet guy. The New York Times. Retrieved from 10/11/2017: http://​www​.nytimes​.com​/movie​/review​?res​=9B0CE6D8133AF930A25751C1A9649C8B63
Hougaard, A.
(2005) Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (10), 1653–1685. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Compression in interaction. In T. Oakley, and A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 179–208). Amsterdam: John Benjmains. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jabłońska-Hood, J.
(2015) A conceptual blending theory of humour: Selected comedy productions in focus. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1983) Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, R.
(2010) Embodied acting: Cognitive foundations of performance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from 12/12/2017: http://​d​-scholarship​.pitt​.edu​/8243​/1​/Kemp​_ETD​_8​_27​_2010​.pdf
(2012) Embodied acting: What neuroscience tells us about performance. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A.
(2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Khouri, M.
(2010) The Arab national project in Youssef Chahine’s cinema. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koestler, A.
(1964) The act of creation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1996) Moral politics: How conservatives and liberals think. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, J.
(2016) Studies in the Arab theatre and cinema. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, J.
(2008) Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5, 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McConachie, B.
(2008) Engaging audiences: A cognitive approach to spectating in the theatre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McConachie, B., & Hart, E.
(2006) Introduction. In B. McConachie, & E. Hart (Eds.), Performance and cognition: Theatre studies and the cognitive turn (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C.
(2009) Imagination. In B. P. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann & S. Walter (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp. 595–606). Oxford/NewYork: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moinereau, L.
(2004) Génériques de fin: les strategies du deuil. In V. Innocenti, & V. Re (Eds.), Limina/le sogliedel film: X. Convegnointernazionale di studisul cinema (77–88). Udine, Italy: Forum.Google Scholar
Monta, E., & Stanley, J.
(2008) Directing for stage and screen. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morreall, J.
(1983) Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Graham, J., & Hawkins, C. B.
(2010) Implicit political cognition. In B. Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 548–564). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, T.
(2013) Toward a general theory of film spectatorship. Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from 10/10/2017: https://​case​.edu​/artsci​/engl​/Library​/Oakley​-TheoryFilmSpectator​.pdf
Oakley, T., & Tobin, V.
(2012) Attention, blending, and suspense in Classic and Experimental Film. In Marcus Hartner and Ralf Schneider (Eds.), Blending and the study of narrative (pp. 57–83). Hawthorne, NY: deGruyter. Retrieved from (1–21): https://​papers​.ssrn​.com​/sol3​/papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=1513283
PagánCánovas, C., & Turner, M.
(2016) Generic integration templates for fictive communication. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.) The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 45–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P.
(2014) Meaning construction in verbomusical environments: conceptual disintegration and metonymy. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 130–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pötzsch, H.
(2012) Framing narratives: Opening sequences in contemporary American and British war films. Media, War & Conflict, 5(2) 155–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, G.
(2004) The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, S.
(2016) Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 23–41). Amsterdam: John Benjmains. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S.
(2008a) With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219–1222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H.
(2008b) Disgust as embodied moraljudgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096–1109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shafik, V.
(2007) Arab cinema: History and cultural identity. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soto-Morettini, D.
(2010) The Philosophical actor: A Practical meditation for practicing theatre artists. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance theory: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanislavsky, K.
(1948) Ozhyvleniyevneshnikhobstoyatel ’stvzhyznip’yesy i roli [Reviving external circumstances of life in play and role]. In V. Meskheteli (Ed.), Ezhegodnik Moskovskogokhudozhestvennogoteatra, 1945, T. 1 [The Moscow art theatre yearbook for 1945, vol.1] (pp. 317–338). Moscow: Izdaniemuzeia Moskovskogokhudozhestvennogoakademicheskogoteatra SSSR imeni M. Gor’kogo.Google Scholar
(1954–1961) Sobraniesochinenii [Collected works], 8 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo.Google Scholar
(1991) Sobraniesochinenii, vol. 4 [An Actor’s Work on the Role and From the Artistic Notebooks], Moscow: Iskusstvo.Google Scholar
(1995) Inner impulses and inner action: Creative objectives.” In R. Drain (Ed.), Twentieth century theatre: A sourcebook (pp. 253–257). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008) An actor’s work: A student’s diary (Jean Benedetti, transl. & Ed.) London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanitzek, G.
(2009) Reading the title sequence (Vorspann, Générique). Cinema Journal, 48 (4), 44–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, F., & Turner, M.
(2013) Multimodal Construction Grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp. 255–274). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Thabet, M.
(2002) Kayfataksirʔil-ihaam fi ʔal-aflaam? 1. ʔal-ihaamʔal-taʕaaqudi 2. ʔal-la ihaam [How to break illusion in film? 1. Contracted illusion 2. No illusion]. Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization (GEBO).Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Boroditsky, L.
(2013) Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PLoS ONE 8(1), e52961. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–22. Retrieved from 10/11/2016: http://​journals​.plos​.org​/plosone​/article​/file​?id​=10​.1371​/journal​.pone​.0133939​&type​=printable
Tomasello, M.
(2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M.
(2001) Cognitive dimensions of social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
(2006a) The art of compression. In M. Turner (Ed.), The artful mind: Cognitive science and the riddle of human creativity (pp. 93–114). New York: oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Compression and representation. Language and Literature, 15(1), 17–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The origin of ideas: blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017) Conceptual compression and alliterative form. English Language and Linguistics, 21 (2), 221–226. Crossref.Google Scholar
Unsworth, L., & Cléirigh, C.
(2009) Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-text interaction. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 151–163). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.
(1999) Context models in discourse processing. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Ed.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 123–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2003) The discourse-knowledge interface. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 85–109). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2008) Discourse and context: a socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W.
(1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wehling, E.
(2013) A nation under joint custody: How conflicting family models divide US politics. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
William, J.
(2017) Cognitive approaches to German historical film: Seeing is not believing. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus, F.
(2011) Cyberpragmatics. Amserdam: John Benjmains. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Humour and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Relevance-theoretic treatments of humor. In S. Attardo (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 189–203). New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar