Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 14:2 (2016) ► pp. 442473


Aisenman, R.A.
(1999) Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(1), 45–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allbritton, D.W.
(1995) When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (1), 33–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A.
(2001) Metaphor in discourse. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 263–287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnden, J.A.
(2001) Uncertainty and conflict handling in the ATT-Meta context-based system for metaphorical reasoning. In V. Akman, P. Bouquet, R. Thomason, & R.A. Young (Eds.), Modeling and using context: Third international and interdisciplinary conference (CONTEXT 2001) (pp. 15–29). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
(2006) Consequences for language learning of an AI approach to metaphor. In J. Salazar, M. Amengual, & M. Juan (Eds.), Usos sociales del lenguaje y aspectos psicolingüísticos: Perspectivas aplicadas (pp. 15–57). Palma de Mallorca: Universitat de les Illes Baleares.Google Scholar
(2008) Metaphor and artificial intelligence: Why they matter to each other. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 311–338). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Metaphor and simile: Fallacies concerning comparison, ellipsis and inter-paraphrase. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 265–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Open-ended elaborations in creative metaphor. In T.R. Besold, 
M. Schorlemmer, & A. Smaill (Eds.), Computational creativity research: Towards creative machines (pp. 217–242). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
(2016) Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 73–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J.A., & Lee, M.G.
(2002) An artificial intelligence approach to metaphor understanding. In T. Komendzinski (Ed.), Metaphor: A multidisciplinary approach. Special issue. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 6(1), 399–412. Google Scholar
Carston, R.
(1996) Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 309–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(2011) Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D.L., & Kennedy, J.M.
(2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2008) Rethinking metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogelin, R.J.
(2011) Figuratively speaking (Revised ed.). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D.
(1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 95–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B.
(2008) Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109–128). Cambridge, U.K.: 
Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., Jr
(Ed.) (2016) Mixing metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., Jr. & Santa Cruz, M.J.
(2012) Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) How metaphors create categories – quickly. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Understanding metaphors: The paradox of unlike things compared. In K. Ahmad (Ed.), Affective computing and sentiment analysis: Emotion, metaphor and terminology (pp. 1–12). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C.
(2006) Can Florida become like the next Florida?: When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935–938. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.E.
(1997) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Z.
(2002) Afghanistan is Vietnam ... and Yugoslavia, Colombia, and Somalia, all rolled into one. In R. Burbach & B. Clark (Eds.), September 11 and the U.S. war: Beyond the curtain of smoke (pp. 61–64). San Francisco: City Lights Books.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J.R.
(1992) Metaphor and abduction. In A. Ortony, J. Slack, & O. Stock (Eds.), Communication from an artificial intelligence perspective: Theoretical and applied issues (pp. 35–58). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L.R.
(1985) Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, M.
(2010) Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 97–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittay, E.F.
(1989) Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). New York/Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, M.G., & Barnden, J.A.
(2001) Reasoning about mixed metaphors with an implemented AI system. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1/2), 29–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Low, G.D.
(2006) Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. 
Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave, Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, W., & Thompson, S.
(1988) Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8, 243–281.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2007) Popular science concepts and their use in creative metaphors in media discourse., 13, 67–85.Google Scholar
Oates, J.C.
(2002) I’ll take you there. London/New York: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2008) A deflationary account of metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge, U.K.: 
Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G.
(1995) Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, K.
(2004)[1993]Metaphor and prop oriented make-believe. In E. John & D.M. Lopes (Eds.), Philosophy of literature – Contemporary and classic readings: An anthology (pp. 239–247). Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted with abridgement from European Journal of Philosophy, 1, 39–57.Google Scholar
Wee, L.
(2003) A new look at novelty in metaphor: Implications for metaphor comprehension and production. Talk given at 5th International conference on researching and applying metaphor (RAAM V) , University of Paris 13, France, 2–5 September 2003.
White, R.M.
(1996) The structure of metaphor: The way the language of metaphor works. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2006) Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language, 21(3), 404–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Barnden, John
2020.  In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9],  pp. 14 ff. Crossref logo
Ervas, Francesca
2021. Metaphor, ignorance and the sentiment of (ir)rationality. Synthese 198:7  pp. 6789 ff. Crossref logo
Kuiken, Don & Shawn Douglas
2018. Living metaphor as the site of bidirectional literary engagement. Scientific Study of Literature 8:1  pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2021. 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.