Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 1–10

Figurativeness all the way down

By way of introduction

| University of Genoa
Article outline
  • Part I.Figurativeness and theory: Addition, identification and structure
  • Part II.Figurativeness and constructions
  • Part III.Figurativeness, pragmaticity and multimodality
  • Part IV.Typology of figures and cognitive models
  • References
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.int
References
Athanasiadou, A.
(2017) Irony has a metonymic basis. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. Colston (Eds.), Irony in Language Use and Communication (pp. 201–216). Figurative Thought and Language Series 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(2016) Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing Metaphor, pp. 75–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bierwiaczonek, B.
(2013) Metonymy in Language, Thought and Brain. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Broccias, C.
(2014) Tight metaphors vs. deadly metonymies: a further rebuttal of Iwata’s bipartite adjectival resultatives. Language Sciences, 44, 40–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S.
(2015) Causal constructions with an adjective in German and French: typological and pedagogical considerations. Special issue of Journal of Social Sciences on “Phraseodidactics and Construction Grammar(s)”, edited by M. I. Gonzalez Rey, 11(3): 289–303.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.
(2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2014a) “Tight links” make convenient metaphors but loose explanations: replying to a reply. Language Sciences, 42, 15–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Going further and further astray: why a loose explanation never becomes tight. Language Sciences, 45, 135–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.
(1988) The computer and the mind. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuczok, M.
(2009) Metaphor and metonymy as tools for describing God in the Old Testament. Linguistica Silesiana, 30, 151–168.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pollio, H., Barlow, J., Fine, H., & Pollio, M.
(1977) Psychology and the poetics of growth. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Putman, H.
(1981) Reason, truth, and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Ian A.
(1936) The Philosophy of Rhetoric. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
(1991) The embodied mind. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Relevance and meaning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Bagasheva, Alexandra, Bozhil Hristov & Nelly Tincheva
2022. Introduction. In Figurativity and Human Ecology [Figurative Thought and Language, 17], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.