Cover not available
Part of
Mental Models across Languages: The visual representation of baldness terms in German, English, and Japanese
Pawel Sickinger
[Human Cognitive Processing 63] 2018
► pp. 311–320

Bibliography

Al-Hasnawi, A. R. 2007. A cognitive approach to translating metaphors. Translation Journal 11(3), n. pag. Retrieved from [URL].
Ameel, E., & Storms, G. 2006. From prototypes to caricatures: Geometrical models for concept typicality. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 402–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. L. 2003. Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 245–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. 2003. Why translation is difficult for computers. In H. L. Somers (Ed.), Computers and translation: A translator’s guide (119–142). Benjamin’s Translations Library 35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (31–58). Topics in English Linguistics 30. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 2010. Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
2002. Being there conceptually: Simulating categories in preparation for situated action. In N. L. Stein, P. J. Bauer, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Representation, memory, and development: Essays in honor of Jean Mandler (1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2003. Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 1177–1187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Situated conceptualization. In H. Cohen, & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (619–650). St. Louis: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 364, 1281–1289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. The human conceptual system. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (239–258). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. 2008. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bello, S. M., Parfitt, S. A., & Stringer, C. B. 2011. Ealiest directly-dated human skull-cups. PLoS ONE 6(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. 2007. Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (277–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Feldman, J. 2008. Embodied concept learning. In P. Calvo, & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (313–331). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. 1969. Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Black, M. 1949. Language and philosophy: Studies in method. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bolaños Cuéllar, S. 2002. Equivalence revisited: A key concept in modern translation theory. Forma y Función, 15, 60–88.Google Scholar
Breuer, E. O. 2014. First language versus foreign language: Fluency, errors and revision processes in foreign language academic writing. Dissertation, University of Bonn. URL: [URL].
Brown, R. W., & Lenneberg, E. H. 1954. A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49(3), 454–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2002. The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25(6), 657–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cangelosi, A., Bongard, J., Fischer, N. H., & Nolfi, S. 2015. Embodied intelligence. In J. Kacprzyk, & W. Pedrycz (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence (697–714). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. 2001. Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1), 80–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A. 1996. On similarity. Target 8(1), 159–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 1998a. Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998b. Magic words: How language augments human computation. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (162–183). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3), 181–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L. 1984. Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 2002. Paradigmatic relations of inclusion and identity III: synonymy. In D. A. Cruse (Ed.), Lexikologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen (485–497). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. 1977. A model of slips of the tongue. In R. J. Dipietro, & E. L. Blansitt (Eds.), The third LACUS forum 1976 (448–455). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Dennison, H., & Bergen, B. K. 2010. Language-driven motor simulation is sensitive to social context. In S. Ohlsson, & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (901–906). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Evans, V. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4), 491–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A. 2006. From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J. A., & Narayanan, S. 2004. Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (55–81). Amsterdam & New York: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
1982. Frame semantics. In T. L. S. of Korea (Ed.): Linguistics in the morning calm (111–138). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
2006. Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (373–400). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Garcia, I. 2010. Is machine translation ready yet? Target 22(1), 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1994. Varieties of lexical variation. In W. Martin, W. Meijs, M. Moerland, E. ten Pas, P. van Sterkenburg, & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Euralex International Congress on Lexicography (78–84). Amsterdam (no publisher).Google Scholar
2006a. Introduction: A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (1–28). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 2006b. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. 1994. The structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. 2006. Image schema: The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (239–268). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. 1996. Mind as computer: Birth of a metaphor. Creativity Research Journal 9(2&3), 131–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 2006. Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göpferich, S. 2008. Translationsprozessforschung – Stand, Methoden, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Göpferich, S., Jakobsen, A. L., & Mees, I. M. (Eds.) 2009. Behind the mind: Methods, models and results in translation process research. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guarrera, M., Cardo, P., Arrigo, P., & Rebora, A. E. 2009. Reliability of Hamilton-Norwood classification. International Journal of Trichology 1(2), 120–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, E. -A. 1989. Translation and relevance. Dissertation, University College London. Retrieved from: [URL].
1991. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. L. 2014. Reorienting translation studies: Cognitive approaches and the centrality of the translator. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary approach (116–139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. B. 1951. Patterned loss of hair in man; Types and incidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 53(3), 709–728. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. 2002. Symbol grounding and the origin of language. In M. Scheutz (Ed.), Computationalism: New directions (143–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heider, E. R. 1971. “Focal” color areas and the development of color names. Developmental Psychology 4(3), 447–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1972. Probabilities, sampling and ethnographic method: The case of Dani colour names. Man, 7, 448–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hillmer, A. M., Hanneken, S., Ritzmann, S., Becker, T., Freudenberg, J., Brockschmidt, F. F., Flaquer, A., Freudenberg-Hua, Y., Rami, Abou J., Metzen, C., Heyn, U., Schweiger, N., Betz, R. C., Blaumeiser, B., Hampe, J., Schreiber, S., Schulze, T. G., Hennies, H. C., Schumacher, J., Propping, P., Ruzicka, T., Cichon, S., Wienker, T. F., Kruse, R., & Nöthen, M. M. 2005. Genetic variation in the human androgen receptor gene is the major determinant of common early-onset androgenetic alopecia. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 77, 140–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holz-Mänttärri, J. 1990. Funktionskonstanz – eine Fiktion? In H. Salevsky (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung: Akten der ersten internationalen Konferenz Übersetzungswissenschaft und Sprachmittlerausbildung (66–74). Berlin: Humboldt Universität.Google Scholar
House, J. 1997. Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2008. Towards a linguistic theory of translation as re-contextualization and a third space phenomenon. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 7, 149–175.Google Scholar
Hubert, M., & Van der Veeken, S. 2008. Outlier detection for skewed data. Journal of Chemometrics 22(3–4), (235–246). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, J. 2003. Machine translation: General overview. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (501–511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ivir, V. 1996. A case for linguistics in translation theory. Target, 8, 149–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jared, D., Pei Yun Poh, R. & Paivio, A. 2013. L1 and L2 picture naming in Mandarin – English bilinguals: A test of bilingual dual coding theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 383–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2004. The history of mental models. In K. Manktelow, & M. C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (179–212). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kade, O. 1968. Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Probleme der Translation. In A. Neubert (Ed.), Grundlagen der Übersetzungswissenschaft (3–19). Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. K. 1978. The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language 54(3), 610–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, V. 1999. The computational metaphor of mind: More bugs in the program. Metaphor and Symbol 14(4), 281–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. 2013. Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, W. 1979. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
1992. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 4th edition. Heidelberg/Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Krings, H. P. 2005. Wege ins Labyrinth: Fragestellungen und Methoden der Übersetzungsprozessforschung im Überblick. Meta 50(2), 342–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. 2008. Culture, society, and cognition: Collective goals, values, action, and knowledge. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. -J. N. Bailey, & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (340–373). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The neural theory of metaphor. DOI logo. Retrieved from: [URL]
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1986. An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999. Assessing the cognitive linguistics enterprise. In T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (13–60). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 2010. Re-conceptualization and the emergence of discourse meaning as a theory of translation. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Thelen (Eds.), Meaning in translation (105–148). Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Equivalence. In L. Bogucki, S. Gozdz-Roszkowski, & P. Stalmaszczyk (Eds.), Ways to translation (1–47). Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. 1974. Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malin, S. 2001. Nature loves to hide: Quantum physics and reality, a Western perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Ping, L., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E. 2015. Bidirectional lexical interaction in late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, N. 1996. The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory. In M. Thelen, & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning, part 3: Proceedings of the Maastricht Session of the 2nd International Maastricht-Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and meaning” (483–495). Maastricht: Universitaire Press.Google Scholar
1997. Grammatical blending: Creative and schematic aspects in sentence processing and translation. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Retrieved from: [URL].
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. 1981. Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milikan, R. G. 2001. The language-thought partnership: A bird’s eye view. Language & Communication, 21, 157–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. W. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mira, J. 2008. Symbols versus connections: 50 years of artificial intelligence. Neurocomputing, 71, 671–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muscarella, F., & Cunningham, M. R. 1996. The evolutionary significance and social perception of male pattern baldness and facial hair. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 17, 99–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, S. 2010. Mind changes: A simulation semantics account of counterfactuals. Unpublished paper, 1–47. Retrieved from: [URL].
Newmark, P. 1976. The theory and the craft of translation. Language Teaching 9(1), 5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nida, E. A. 1964. Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill Archive.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. 1969. The theory and practice of translation. London, New York & Stuttgart: United Bible Societies.Google Scholar
Nord, C. 1989. Loyalität statt Treue: Vorschläge für eine funktionale Übersetzungstypologie. Lebende Sprachen 34(3), 100–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Function plus loyalty: Ethics in professional translation. Génesis. Revista Científica do ISAG, 6, 7–17.Google Scholar
Norwood, O. T. 1975. Male pattern baldness: Classification and incidence. Southern Medical Journal 68(11), 1359–1365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oettinger, A. G. 1960. Automatic language translation: Lexical and technical aspects, with particular reference to Russian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. 1989 [1923]. The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. 8th edition. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2009. Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (125–160). Bristol: Multilingual MattersDOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. 1946. La formation du symbole chez l’enfant: Imitation, jeu et rêve, image et représentation. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
1959. The language and thought of the Child. 3rd edition. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, R., & Souza Bittencourt, R. de. 2008. An interview with Mark Johnson and Tim Rohrer: From neurons to sociocultural situatedness. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (21–51). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1994. Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik. München: Piper Verlag.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 1999. Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, A. 1992. Translation and text transfer: An essay on the principles of intercultural communication. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1997. Koller’s Äquivalenz revisited. The Translator 3(1), 71–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Western translation theories as responses to equivalence. Unpublished paper. N. pag. Retrieved from [URL].
2010. Exploring translation theories. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2001. What is said. Synthese, 128, 75–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (284–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiss, K. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Amsterdam: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, H. 2000. Situated Translation und Situated Cognition: ungleiche Schwestern. In M. Kadric et al. (Eds.), Translationswissenschaft. Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag (81–91). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Rojo, A., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2013. Cognitive linguistics and translation studies: Past, present and future. In A. Rojo, & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (3–30). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1998. Categorization. In J. -O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rovelli, C. 2013. Free will, determinism, quantum theory and statistical fluctuations: A physicist’s take. N. pag. Retrieved from [URL].
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323, 533–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeed, J. I. 2009. Semantics. 3rd edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne/Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. D. E. 1814. Alte Literatur: Ueber die Farbengebung des Alterthümlichen in Verdeutschung alter klassischer Prosa. Die Musen, 102–120.Google Scholar
Schnelle, H. 2010. Language in the brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1980. Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3), 417–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seitz, J. A. 2000. The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 23–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, D., & Lederer, M. 1989. Pédagogie raisonnée de l’interprétation. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. 2007. The embodied cognition research programme. Philosophy Compass, 2, 338–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Embodied cognition. New Problems of Philosophy. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sickinger, P. 2012. Mental models and linguistic cues: Investigating the interface between language and mental representation across cultures. 35th International LAUD Symposium: Cognitive psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, cognition and communication. Essen: LAUD, 125–146.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R., & Ferreira, V. S. 2006. Halting in single word production: A test of the perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, M. 1988. Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) 1986. Übersetzungswissenschaft – eine Neuorientierung. Zur Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Somers, H. L. 2003. Machine translation: Latest developments. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (512–528). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 1996. Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers, & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (184–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taheri-Ardali, M., Bagheri, M., & Eidy, R. 2013. Towards a new model to metaphor translation: A cognitive approach. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies 11(41), 35–52.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic categorization. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Prototyes in cognitive linguistics. In P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (39–65). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, R., Matassa, J., Leavy, J. E., & Fritschi, L. 2004. Validity of self reported male balding patterns in epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health 4(60).Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2005. Androgenetic alopecia – current status. Indian Journal of Dermatology [serial online] 50(4), n. pag. [179–190]. Retrieved from: [URL].
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, M., & Bergen, B. 2005. Lexical processing drives motor simulation. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (2206–2211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. 1998. The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of the difference. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, H. J. 1994. Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer. In M. Snell-Hornby (Ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft – Eine Neuorientierung (30–53). Tübingen: Franke Verlag.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. -P., & Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Vincente, A., & Martínez-Manrique, F. 2005. Semantic underdetermination and the cognitive uses of language. Mind & Language 20(5), 537–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voegelin, C. F. 1954. Multiple stage translation. International Journal of American Liguistics, 20, 271–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benhamin Lee Whorf. [Edited by J. B. Carroll]. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1990. The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 99–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilss, W. 1982. The science of translation: Problems and methods. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1990. Cognitive aspects of the translation process. [Translated by Roger C. Norton]. Language & Communication, 10, 19–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Übersetzungsfertigkeit. Annäherungen an einen komplexen übersetzungspraktischen Begriff. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. 2004. The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123(2), 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. 2004. Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. 2002. Research report: Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science 13(2), 168–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar