Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling


Boas, H. C.
(2005) From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp. 129–160). Tübingen: Narr.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
(2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. Crossref link
Gibbs, R. W.
(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. Crossref link
(2007) Experimental tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.) Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. Crossref link
Glebkin, V.
(2013) A critical view of Conceptual Blending Theory. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2404–2409). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. Crossref link
Grady, J. E.
(1997)  theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. Crossref link
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Hampe, B.
(Ed.) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. Crossref link
[ p. 322 ]
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. Crossref link
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref link
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. Crossref link
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Matlock, T.
(2004) The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2010) Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. Crossref link
Moore, K. E.
(2014) The two-mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 375–409. Crossref link
Peña, S.
(2003) Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.
(2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. Crossref link
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2009) Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K. -U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Rao, S. M., Mayer, A. R., & Harrington, D. L.
(2001) The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 317–323. Crossref link
Richardson, D. C., & Matlock, T.
(2007) The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129–138. Crossref link
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2008) Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
(2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
(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: Cambridge University Press.
[ p. 323 ]
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. I.
(2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. Crossref link
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. Crossref link
Talmy, L.
(2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring system. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
(2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
(2007) Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2014) Concept structuring systems in language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol. II. (pp. 15–46). New York: Psychology Press.
Veale, T.
(2005) Incongruity on humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419–428.[ p. 324 ]
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Haddad Haddad & Montero-Martínez
2019. The ‘Carbon Capture’ Metaphor: An English-Arabic Terminological Case Study. Languages 4:4  pp. 77 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2020. 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.