Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp. 118
References

References

Ariel, M.
(2002) The demise of a unique literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 361–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
(1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of language processing, (pp. 3–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E.
(1999) On the nature and nurture of language. In E. Bizzi, P. Calissano & V. Volterra (Eds.), Frontiers of biology: The brain of Homo sapiens, (pp. 241–265). Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondata da Giovanni Trecanni.Google Scholar
Blasko, G. D., & Connine, C.
(1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295–308.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Kutas, M.
(1998) Frame-shifting and sentential integration, technical report. CogSci, 98(3).Google Scholar
Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., Sharifi, S., & Meshkatod Dini, M.
(2013) A survey on optimal innovation and Salience Hypothesis in the Persian advertisement. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(12), 342–353.Google Scholar
Erfaniyan Qonsuli, L., Sharifi, Sh., & Meshkatod Dini, M.
(2014) Understanding irony in Graded Salience Hypothesis. The first conference on neuro-psychology (107–125). Linguistic Society of Iran.Google Scholar
(2014) Figurative language; A survey on the factors related to the semantic comprehension; Their effectiveness and psychological reliability, Ph.D. dissertation, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.
(1983) The modularity of mind, Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 16 ]
Forster, K. I.
(1976) Accessing the mental lexicon. In R. J. Wales & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
(1979) Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Inc: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A.
(1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A.
(1984) Resolving twenty years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O.
(1999) On understanding familiar and less familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Laadan, D., Wolfson, J., Zeituny, M., Kidron, R., Kaufman, R., & Shaham, R.
(2007a) Expecting irony: Context versus salience-sased effects. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(2), 119–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, I., Shuval, N., & Zur, A.
(2004) Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 115–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., Livnat, E., Fein, O., Barnea, A., Zeiman, R., & Berger, I.
(2013) Negation generates non-literal interpretations by default. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 89–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T.
(1994) Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgements: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivanko, S., & Pexman, P. M.
(2001) Understanding irony: On-line processing of figurative and literal meaning. Poster presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse. University of California: Santa Barbara.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wooley, J. D.
(1982) Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. N.
(1977) Propositional structure and illocutionary force. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Kazemi, S. A., Araghi, S. M., & Bahramy, M.
(2013) The role of conceptual metaphor in idioms and mental imagery in Persian speakers. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), 38–47.Google Scholar
Kecskés, I., & Papp, T.
(2000) Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kecskés, I.
(2000a) Conceptual fluency and the use of situation-bound utterances in L2. Links & Letters, 7, 143–158.Google Scholar
(2000b) A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 605–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 17 ]
Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M.
(1993) The empirical study of figurative language in literature. Poetics, 22, 151–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laurent, J., Denhières, G., Passerieux, C., Iakimova, G., & Hardy-Baylé, M.
(2006) On understanding idiomatic language: The Salience Hypothesis assessed by ERPs. Brain Research, 1068, 151–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(1987) The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mirdehghan, M., Nejati, V., & Davoodi, E.
(2012) A comprehensive study of Persian proverbs among monolingual and bilingual adolescents comparatively on the basis of the constraint satisfaction. Language Related Research, 12, 3(3), 193–216.Google Scholar
Morris, R. K., & Binder, K. S.
(2002) What do skilled readers do with the unselected meaning of an ambiguous word? In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on ambiguity resolution (pp. 139–153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V., & Ghafel, B.
(2012) Idiomatic expressions of number in Persian and English. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 19–26.Google Scholar
Pexman, P. M., Ferretti, T., & Katz, A.
(2000) Discourse factors that influence irony detection during on-line reading. Discourse Processes, 29, 201–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rasex Mahand, M., & Shamsod Dini, M.
(2012) Semantic classification of Persian idioms: A Cognitive Linguistics approach. Adab Pajuhi, 20, 11–32.Google Scholar
Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K.
(2000) Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 15, 47–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R., MacDonald, M. C., & Arnold, J. E.
(2000) The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 195–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B.
(2000) Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zolfaqari, H.
(2008) The difference between irony and proverb. Research on Persian Language and Literature Journal, 10, 109–133.Google Scholar
[ p. 18 ]