Between embodiment and usage
Conventionalized figurative expressions and the notion of ‘idiom set’
This chapter investigates the roles of embodied experience and experienced language use as
motivating factors in the emergence of an open set of closely related and partially conventionalized figurative
expressions: up to one’s eyes in debt, up to one’s ears in a mess, etc. The case study reported
analyzes 276 instantiations of the low-level construction [up to X N: body-part,
poss. in Y N: mass], also referred to here as the “immersion schema”. The
multimodal data are randomly taken from U.S. television as documented in the UCLA Newscape Archive, a
component of the RedHen Lab, and accessed via the Erlangen corpus NewsScape English v.5. To
investigate dominant usage patterns, the case study employs an adapted “covarying collexeme analysis” capturing the
co-varying lexical meanings contributed by X and Y. This is complemented by coarse-grained analyses of 54 co-speech
gestures in the corpus data that are co-expressive with instantiations of the immersion schema. Identifying two major
subschemas, the case study shows how figurative, i.e. metonymical and metaphorical, instantiations of the immersion
schema draw on the conceptual and formal framework provided by formally identical ‘literal’ instantiations verbalizing
actual bodily immersion experiences. To capture the relations in this network of instantiations and account for the
productivity of the schema – especially the variation and creativity to be observed with its figurative
instantiations – the chapter introduces the dynamic, usage- and construction-based notion of “idiom set”.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Embodiment, usage, metaphor
- 2.Multimodality in discourse and constructicon
- 3.The set of expressions licensed by the ‘immersion schema’
- 4.Case study: The idiom set licensed by [up to X in Y]
- 4.1Corpus data and methods applied
- 4.2Data retrieval and coding
- 4.3Results of the quantitative analyses of the verbal instantiations
- 4.4Interim discussion: Corpus data and embodiment
- 4.5Co-speech gestures: Results and discussion
- 5.Individual variation in the use of the immersion schema
- 6.Metaphoricity and creativity in the use of immersion idioms
- 7.Metaphor between embodiment and usage: Conclusions
-
Notes
-
References
References
Alibali, M. W., Boncoddo, R., & Hostetter, A.
(
2014)
Gesture
in reasoning: An embodied perspective. In
L. Shapiro (Ed.),
The
Routledge Handbook of Embodied
Cognition (pp. 150–159). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A.
(
2010)
Cognitive
Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and
methodology.
Corpora,
5(1), 1–27.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, L. W.
(
2008)
Grounded
cognition.
Annual Review of
Psychology,
59, 617–645.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B. K.
(
2005)
Mental
simulation in literal and figurative language
understanding. In
S. Coulson &
B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.),
The
Literal and Nonliteral in Language and
Thought (pp. 255–280). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
(
2012)
Entrenchment
in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the
mind. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H.
(
2011)
Rethinking
gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural
movement? Semiotica,
184(4), 53–91.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, L.
(
2008)
Metaphor
shifting in the dynamics of talk. In
M. S. Zanotto,
L. Cameron, &
M. C. Cavalcanti (Eds.),
Confronting
Metaphor in Use: An Applied-LInguistic
Approach (pp. 45–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, L.
(
2010a)
The
discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In
L. Cameron &
R. Maslen (Eds.),
Metaphor
Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science and the
Humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, L.
(
2010b)
Metaphors
and discourse activity. In
L. Cameron &
R. Maslen (Eds.),
Metaphor
Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science and the
Humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A.
(
2006)
The
emergence of metaphor in discourse Applied
Linguistics,
27(4), 671–690.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N.
(
2009)
The
discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse
analysis.
Metaphor and
Symbol,
24(2), 63–89.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Casasanto, D.
(
2013)
Development
of metaphorical thinking: The role of
language. In
M. Borkent,
B. Dancygier, &
J. Hinnell (Eds.),
Language
and the Creative
Mind (pp. 3–18). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Casasanto, D.
(
2014)
Experiential
origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the
body. In
M. J. Landau,
M. D. Robinson, &
B. P. Meier (Eds.),
The
Power of Metaphor: Examining its Influence on Social
Life (pp. 249–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A.
(
1998)
Metaphoric
gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric
expressions. In
J.-P. Koenig (Ed.),
Discourse
and
Cognition (pp. 189–204). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A.
(
2010)
Multimodal
metaphor analysis. In
L. Cameron &
R. Maslen (Eds.),
Metaphor
Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science and the
Humanities (pp. 195–216). London: Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A.
(
2013)
Cognitive
Linguistics. Spoken language and gesture as expressions of
conceptualization. In
C. Müller,
A. Cienki,
E. Fricke,
S. Ladewig,
D. McNeill, &
S. Teßendorf (Eds.),
Body –
Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human
Interaction (pp. 182–201). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A.
(
2016)
Cognitive
Lingustics, gesture studies and multimodal communication.
Cognitive
Linguistics,
27(4), 603–618.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A.
(
2017)
Utterance
Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of
constructions.
Linguistics
Vanguard,
13(s1), 20160048.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Colston, H. L.
(
2015)
Using
Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, E.
(
2016)
Cognitive
Linguistics’ seven deadly sins.
Cognitive
Linguistics,
27(4), 479–491.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diessel, H.
(
2019)
The
Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’ Connor, M. C.
(
1988)
Regularity
and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let
alone.
Language,
64(3), 501–538.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
1992)
What
do idioms really mean?.
Journal of Memory and
Language 31, 485–506.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
1993)
Why
idioms are not dead metaphors. In
C. Cacciari &
P. Tabossi (Eds.),
Idioms,
Processing Structure and
Interpretation (pp. 57–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
1994)
The
Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
2003)
Embodied
experience and linguistic meaning.
Brain and
Language,
84, 1–15.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
2005)
Embodiment
in Metaphorical Imagination. In
D. Pecher &
R. A. Zwaan (Eds.),
Grounding
Cognition. The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and
Thinking (pp. 65–92). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
2006)
Embodiment
and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, New York, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
2017)
Metaphor,
language and dynamical systems. In
E. Semino &
Z. Demjén (Eds.),
The
Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and
Language (pp. 56–69). Abingdon: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J.
(
1997)
Metaphor
in idiom comprehension.
Journal of Memory and
Language,
37, 141–154.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Cameron, L.
(
2008)
The
social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance.
Journal of Cognitive Systems
Research,
9(1–2), 64–75.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Gould, J., & Andric, M.
(
2006)
Imagining
metaphorical actions: Embodied simulations make the impossible
plausible.
Imagination, Cognition, &
Personality,
25, 221–238.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Lima, P. L. C., & Francozo, E.
(
2004)
Metaphor
is grounded in embodied experience.
Journal of
Pragmatics,
36, 1189–1210.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Matlock, T.
(
2008)
Metaphor,
imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic
evidence. In
R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.),
The
Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and
Thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & O’Brien, J.
(
1990)
Idioms
and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic
meaning.
Cognition,
36, 35–68.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E.
(
2006)
Constructions
at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E.
(
2019)
Explain
me this: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of
Constructions. Princeton, N.J.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
Hampe, B.
(
2017)
Embodiment
and discourse: Dimensions and dynamics of contemporary metaphor
theory. In
B. Hampe (Ed.),
Metaphor.
Embodied Cognition and
Discourse (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoffmann, T.
(
2017)
Multimodal
constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working
memory.
Linguistics
Vanguard,
3(s1), 20160042.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hostetter, A., & Alibali, M.
(
2008)
Visible
embodiment: Gestures as simulated action.
Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review,
15(3), 495–514.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, L. A.
(Ed.) (
2013)
Cognitive
Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. The Essential
Reader. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kappelhoff, H., & Müller, C.
Kendon, A.
(
1988)
How
gestures can become like words. In
F. Poyatos (Ed.),
Cross-Cultural
Perspectives in Nonverbal
Communication. (pp. 131–141).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kendon, A.
(
2004)
Gesture:
Visual Action as Utterance. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z.
(
2009)
Metaphor,
Culture, and Discourse: The Pressure of
Coherence. In
A. Musolff &
J. Zinken (Eds.),
Metaphor
and
Discourse (pp. 11–24). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Woman,
Fire, and Dangerous
Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1993)
The
contemporary theory of metaphor. In
A. Ortony (Ed.),
Metaphor
and Thought. 2nd
Edition. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(
1999)
Philosophy
in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
2000)
A
dynamic usage based model. In
M. Barlow &
S. Kemmer (Eds.),
Usage-Based
Models of
Language (pp. 1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI-Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D.
(
1992)
Hand
and Mind. What Gestures Reveal about
Thought. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D.
(
2000)
Introduction In
D. McNeill (Ed.),
Language
and
Gesture (pp. 1–10). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D.
(
2005)
Gesture
and Thought. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D., & Duncan, S. D.
(
2000)
Growth
points in thinking-for-speaking. In
D. McNeill (Ed.),
Language
and Gesture. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mittelberg, I.
(
2010)
Geometric
and image-schematic patterns in gesture
space. In
V. Evans &
P. Chilton (Eds.),
Language,
Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New
Directions (pp. 351–385). London: Equinox.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mittelberg, I.
(
2013)
The
exbodied mind. Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in
gesture. In
C. Müller,
A. Cienki,
E. Fricke,
S. Ladewig,
D. McNeill, &
S. Teßendorf (Eds.),
Body –
Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human
Interaction. (pp. 750–779). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mittelberg, I.
(
2017)
Multimodal
existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and
gestural patterns.
Linguistics
Vanguard,
3(s1).
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moon, R.
(
1998)
Fixed
Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based
Approach. Auckland: Clarendon Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, C.
(
2008a)
Metaphors
Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking. A Dynamic
View. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, C., & Cienki, A.
(
2009)
Metaphor,
gestures, and beyond: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken
language. In
C. Forceville &
E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.),
Multimodal
metaphor (pp. 293–321). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, C., & Tag, S.
(
2010)
The
dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational
interaction.
Cognitive
Semiotics,
10(6), 85–120.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nayak, N., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
(
1990)
Conceptual
knowledge in the interpretation of idioms.
Journal of Experimental
Psychology,
119, 315–330.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ningelgen, J., & Auer, P.
(
2017)
Is
there a multimodal cnstruction based on non-deictic so in
German? Linguistics
Vanguard,
3(s1), 20160051.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T.
(
1994)
Idioms.
Language,
70(3), 491–538.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, F. J.
(
2017)
Metaphor
and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to
complexity. In
B. Hampe (Ed.),
Metaphor.
Embodied Cognition and
Discourse. (pp. 138–159). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H.-J.
(
2000)
English
abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H.-J.
(
2010)
Does
frequency in text instantiate entrenchment? In
D. Glynn &
K. Fischer (Eds.),
Quantitative
Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven
Approaches. (pp. 101–133). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H.-J.
(
2016)
Why
cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more
seriously.
Cognitive
Linguistics,
27(4), 543–557.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H.-J.
(
2020)
The
Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and
Entrenchment. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schoonjans, S.
(
2017)
Multimodal
Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues.
Linguistics
Vanguard,
3(s1), 20160050.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steen, F., & Turner, M.
(
2013)
Multimodal
Construction Grammar. In
M. Borkent,
B. Dancygier, &
J. Hinnell (Eds.),
Language
and the Creative Mind. Stanford: CA: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steen, G. J.
(
2008)
The
Paradox of Metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of
metaphor.
Metaphor and
Symbol,
23(4), 213–241.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steen, G. J.
(
2013)
Deliberate
metaphor affords conscious metaphorical thought Cognitive
Semiotics,
5(1–2), 179–197.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S.
(
2017)
The
corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In
H.-J. Schmid (Ed.),
Entrenchment
and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic
knowledge. (pp. 101–127). Berlin/Washington, DC: de Gruyter Mouton and APA.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(
2005)
Covarying
collexemes.
Corpus Linguistics and
LinguisticTheory, 1(1), 1–43.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Turner, M.
(
2014)
Language,
gesture and bodily stance: Grammar as a multi-modal system.
Вестник
Челябинского государственного
университета,
336(7), 40–47.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Winter, B., & Matlock, T.
(
2017)
Primary
Metaphors are both Cultural and Embodied. In
B. Hampe (Ed.),
Metaphor:
Embodiment and
Discourse (pp. 99–115). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ziem, A.
(
2017)
Do
we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics
Vanguard,
3(s1), 20160095.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zima, E.
(
2017)
On
the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y].
Linguistics
Vanguard,
3(s1), 20160055.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zima, E., & Bergs, A.
(
2017)
Towards
a multimodal construction grammar. Special
issue. In
Linguistics Vanguard. A Multimodal Journal
for the Language
Sciences 3 (s1).
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zinken, J.
(
2007)
Discourse
metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual
analogies.
Cognitive
Linguistics,
18(3), 445–466.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zinken, J., & Musolff, A.
(
2009)
A
Discourse-Centred Perspective on Metaphorical Meaning and
Understanding. In
A. Musolff &
J. Zinken (Eds.),
Metaphor
and
Discourse (pp. 1–8). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Colston, Herbert L. & Carina Rasse
Hoffmann, Thomas
2022.
Constructionist approaches to creativity.
Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1
► pp. 259 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Maricel Esteban Fonollos
2023.
Hasta los huesos, bis in die Knochen. Construcciones fraseológicas somáticas en contraste a través de corpus.
Revista de Filología Alemana 31
► pp. 145 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 may 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.