Cover not available
Review published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp.576–589
Book review

M. Bolognesi, M. Brdar & K. Despot (Eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2019. https://​doi​.org​/10​.1075​/milcc​.8

Reviewed by
| University of Granada
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00071.ure
References
De Vignemont, F., Majid, A., Jola, C., & Haggard, P.
(2009) Segmenting the body into parts: Evidence from biases in tactile perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(3), 500–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J.
(2006) From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambrdige, MA: MIT Press, A Bradford Book. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2015) Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future?. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 73–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Chen, E.
(2017) Taking metaphor studies back to the stone age: A reply to Xu, Zhang and Wu 2016. Intercultural Pragmatics, 141, 117–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
(2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy? In O. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 121–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistics perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Šorm, E., & Steen, G.
(2013) Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.
(2011) What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean?: More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor & the Social World, 11, 53–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
(2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. S.
(2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
2011 Creative language retrieval: A robust hybrid of information retrieval and linguistic creativity. In Proceedings of ACL’2011, the 49th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(2008) The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sihna & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 215–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The mimesis hierarchy of semiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children. Public Journal of Semiotics, 41, 47–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Meaning making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and phenomenology. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1), 20180001. DOI logoGoogle Scholar